Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Ex-service Personnel (Housing)

Laura Moffatt: What progress is being made on enabling former ex-service personnel to demonstrate a local connection when applying for council housing.

Derek Twigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, before I answer my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers who was killed in southern Afghanistan yesterday. His tragic death reminds us of the debt of gratitude that we owe those who have lost their lives in the service of our country and those still serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	On 28 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing announced that we are taking action, as part of the Housing and Regeneration Bill laid before the House, to ensure that service personnel are treated fairly when applying to councils for social housing or homelessness assistance. We are amending the law so that service personnel will acquire a connection with the area in which they are stationed or living, which will put them on an equal footing with their civilian counterparts.

Laura Moffatt: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. To take him a little further in the debate about council housing, we know that, if action is taken early, we can reduce the numbers leaving our services and becoming homeless in our areas. Are discussions taking place between local authorities and the armed forces to ensure that those brave people obtain houses?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Bases and the armed forces have regular discussions with a range of people about housing, including not only local authorities, but charities. The resettlement package that we have put together is quite extensive in terms of providing housing advice, too. The latest figures from the research that has been undertaken show that around 6 or 7 per cent. of the homeless are ex-forces. We have a number of partnerships, working with people to provide accommodation for former service personnel who have become homeless. Last year I visited the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation in East Acton, which has an excellent scheme. Project Compass in London is another fantastic charity providing hope and support, particularly for ex-service personnel, not just on housing but on education and work.

Peter Viggers: Does the Minister agree that that point is important, and that a particularly heavy burden falls on those towns that have substantial service garrisons within them? Service personnel leaving the armed forces while living in those garrison towns will naturally look first to that town, rather than to their local authority of origin. Will he also look at the burden on the local authority of origin, which is particularly important when armed services personnel happen to leave prematurely and unexpectedly?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course there is a lot of pressure on local housing in garrison towns. Our joint service housing advice office is important for service personnel. As I mentioned earlier, the resettlement package that we have put together includes housing advice. Working with local authorities is an important part of that. I will take the hon. Gentleman's comments on board next time I discuss the issue with officials.

Andrew MacKinlay: Why cannot there be a national scheme that recognises that every local authority has national obligations? Why cannot every local authority be required to top-slice, in order to put a small percentage of voids at the disposal of ex-service personnel, which would maximise the choice to retiring service personnel and be fair to all local authorities rather than to some? Surely that is the answer. Why is it beyond the wit of men and women to organise such a scheme?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has perplexed many of us: why do local authorities not give priority to ex-service personnel? Many local authorities in fact do so, and they should be praised. We have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and the Department for Communities and Local Government about such issues, and we will continue to do so. As I said in my opening answer, I am pleased by the announcement about the local connection, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will take such matters up.

Gerald Howarth: Is the Minister aware that of the 4,500 people on the housing waiting list in the borough of Rushmoor, which includes the garrison town of Aldershot, some 600 are service personnel and that an increasing number of those are non-UK citizens who have enlisted in the Army? What action is being taken to warn overseas recruits, particularly those who serve for a short period of time, that there is a severe housing shortage in the United Kingdom?
	If I may crave your indulgence as the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to seize this opportunity to pay tribute to the Army and to Rushmoor council for last week being selected by the British Olympic Association as the pre-Olympics training base for Britain's athletes. This may be the most depressing day of the year for the Government, but there is great rejoicing in Aldershot.

Derek Twigg: I add my congratulations to Aldershot on its being chosen. I am sure that it will help to add to our medal total in the Olympic games. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on housing. I accept that we need to do all that we can to assist with housing and advice, but if we look back to the time when his party was in government, we will remember the amount of house building that took place and the amount of cuts that it made in social housing. This Government have plans to increase the amount of housing provided in this country.

Iraq

Brian Binley: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.

Des Browne: The security situation in Iraq varies from province to province. Levels of violence are still unacceptably high, but there has been significant improvement nationwide over the course of 2007. In and around Baghdad, for example, following action by Iraqi and coalition forces, security has been enhanced. In the south, the security situation remains relatively stable. The increasing capability of the Iraqi security forces, under the leadership of Generals Mohan and Jalil, enabled the successful handover of security responsibility for Basra province to the Iraqi civilian authorities on 16 December. The Iraqi security forces have shown themselves able to deal effectively with security incidents that have occurred since then, such as the disturbances in Basra and Nasiriyah during last week's Ashura festival.

Brian Binley: Senior elements in the Iraqi army say that they have enough people in Basra but that they are dangerously short of equipment. Will the Secretary of State impress upon the Iraqi Government that British efforts will have been wasted if the Iraqi army is unable to procure the relevant equipment quickly?

Des Browne: I am aware of the need to ensure that the Iraqi army is properly equipped to carry out the task that is expected of it. Of course, our focus is not only on training troops but on ensuring that the Iraqi Ministry of Defence is able, through its procurement process, which we support specifically by the deployment of support to the Ministry in Baghdad, to spend the increasing levels of income that the Iraqi Government are able to achieve from the sale of oil. We are making significant progress in that regard, and that equipment is improving day by day. I spoke to General Mohan when he visited last week, and I know that he has expressed some frustration about the pace at which that is happening, but that is a result of a number of different things and we are keeping a close eye on the situation. Procurement is improving.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State give us an indication of when he expects the last British troops finally to leave Iraq?

Des Browne: As I have said to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions, we keep these matters under review. We are clear about the progress that we have been able to make, particularly over the past 18 months, with regard to the reduction of our troops in Iraq. I have never been prepared to put a date on when we will remove the last of our troops from Iraq—and I am not prepared to do so now—but it will be a function of the conditions on the ground and the ability of the Iraqi security forces to provide security for their own people.

James Arbuthnot: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), one concern about the Iraqi Ministry of Defence's procurement processes is that some factions within Iraq might be trying to keep the Iraqi army unnecessarily weak. What can we, the British, do about that? General Mohan is short of machine guns and mortars, and he needs a speedy answer to that problem.

Des Browne: I know that the right hon. Gentleman met General Mohan when he was here last week. I am sure that he was impressed, as I was, by the general's professionalism and dedication to the job. We are all delighted that he has continued in the job beyond the date of his first appointment. He displayed commendable and professional energy and commitment. He did not raise that specific issue with me but I am sure that he raised comprehensively all the issues that he intended to raise with those whom he met. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I must point out that, last year, the Iraqi Ministry of Defence was very successful in spending its procurement budget, to the extent of 85 per cent. We believe that the figure will also be about 85 per cent. this year.
	My own observations on the restrictions on spending arise from the cumbersome conditions that have been imposed by the coalition authority to prevent corruption. The need for them is understandable, but the Iraqis are sometimes wary of working through them. I have not heard specific comments from any source about ethnic division in relation to procurement, but I can understand why people might think that such an issue might exist. I shall ensure that that does not become a manifest problem in Iraq in the months to come.

Edward Leigh: Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about the security situation in Basra and he told the House that violence there was down by 90 per cent. Today, a member of the public from York wrote to me to say:
	"He, the Prime Minister, chose not to mention that this"—
	the decline in violence—
	"is due entirely to the oppressive methods used by the police force. They impose extreme forms of Islam on the people. Women are unable to venture out in public unless their dress conforms to the extreme Islamic rules"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to read out a full letter on a supplementary question. He is lucky that I called him.

Des Browne: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the 90 per cent. figure used by the Prime Minister has been used regularly in the House. It relates to the reduction in violence and it is due substantially to the fact that about 80 per cent. of violence in Basra was directed at our troops when they were based there.
	I have no way of knowing the provenance of the information that the hon. Gentleman presented to the House. He is perfectly entitled to put his constituent's observations to us, but unless we know the factual basis of that constituent's opinion, we have no way of evaluating it. I asked for and was provided with about 45 minutes of candid footage of the centre of Basra a couple of weeks ago. I saw obvious evidence of women moving around in the town's markets and they were not dressed as the hon. Gentleman described. I was struck by that because of the assertions that many people had made. It seemed to be a bustling city in many respects. There is violence and I understand that, but Generals Mohan and Jalil—and the army and the police force generally—are improving their ability to deal with it. There is still some way to go—no one ever represents the position differently—but from my own observation of candid footage of the centre of the city, it is not capable of being described as the hon. Gentleman put it.

School Places

Bob Russell: What discussions he has had with the Essex local education authority on provision of school places for the children of personnel to be stationed in super-garrisons with reference to recommendation 5 of the Defence Committee report on educating service children (HC(2005-06) 1054); and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: Although Colchester has been identified as a potential super-garrison, it is too early for any firm decision on that. Regardless of that, the Ministry of Defence and Essex local authority officials continue to discuss schooling for the children of Colchester garrison. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Government response to the Select Committee on Defence inquiry responded to recommendation 5 and made our position clear.

Bob Russell: I wonder whether the Minister would kindly write to me, and put the letter in the Library, to provide the precise dates when those discussions, and any subsequent ones, commenced. The first the Colchester garrison knew about the proposal to close Alderman Blaxill secondary school, where between 20 and 25 per cent. of pupils are children of military personnel, was when it appeared in Colchester's  Evening Gazette. When did those discussions start and how do they comply with the spirit of the Defence Committee's recommendations?

Derek Twigg: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter and I am happy to meet him to discuss it in further detail. Discussions with the education authority are ongoing and I am assured that MOD officials are content with their involvement in them. I believe that the result of those discussions will be the provision of the best possible education for our service children. As I say, I would be happy to update him at a meeting.

Educational Support

Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on the provision of educational support to the children of service personnel.

Derek Twigg: We believe educational support for children from service families, whether they are in the UK or overseas, is very important. Last year, investment in service schools through the Service Children's Education agency, in the continuity of education allowance to support children at boarding schools, and in our highly regarded Children's Education Advisory Service, was more than £230 million. Ministry of Defence officials regularly meet colleagues from the Department for Children, Schools and Families and from devolved Administration Departments to discuss measures to support service children's education.

Shona McIsaac: I thank the Minister for that answer. My late father served in the Royal Navy for 25 years, so I sampled many different schools around the country. I have to say that the provision today is far superior to what it was when I was travelling up and down Britain. However, will the Minister allude to what is being done for younger children? I appreciate what he is saying about schools, but what about child care for young children, including the issue of vouchers?

Derek Twigg: I pay tribute to the service of my hon. Friend's father, of whom I know she is very proud. Our Children's Education Advisory Service considers regularly the range of education issues and has discussions with local education authorities. Of course, our own education service also provides schools, for example in Germany. Our results are in the top 25 of 150 local education authorities, which is laudable.
	My hon. Friend will know that from 10 December 2007 all members of the UK armed forces have had access to the new armed forces child care voucher. They can choose to receive between £30 and £243 per month in child care vouchers instead of cash with salary from the MOD. That is a major step forward. It has been welcomed by the service families federations, and I am sure that it will be well taken up.

Robert Key: Will the Minister bear in mind that across the country about 2 per cent. of children in schools overall, but more than 4 per cent. of service children, have special educational needs? That is down largely to general disruption rather than to any other factor, but it has severe funding implications. Will he draw that to the attention of his colleagues in Government to see whether they can find equitable funding to cope with the tremendous churn in those schools—there are many in my constituency and others—that have a high proportion of service children?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point about education for the children of our service families. As he will know from his time on the Defence Committee, our Children's Education Advisory Service is working hard on the issue, as the Committee has acknowledged. We continue to talk to our colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families and local authorities to ensure that proper support is given. As I am sure that he recognises, the advisory service that we have is first-class and works hard to ensure that support is put in place.

David Hamilton: My hon. Friend is aware that the Defence Committee drew attention to the fact that while a lot of good work is being done throughout the UK, we must distinguish between different areas: Scotland, for example, has a different education system from England. In evidence sessions, we found that that was not adequately recognised. When children come from abroad to the UK, it is important that they are made aware of the different education systems. It might be an idea for the education authorities of each of the countries to meet perhaps on a six-monthly basis under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, to try to collate some of the work that might be done.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend will know that our officials meet with the different Executives and the Assembly Government, and with local authorities, on issues across education. He makes an important point, and I shall consider it and write to him.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister will understand how important it is, in fulfilling our obligations under the military covenant, to ensure that service children are educated as well as possible. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the pupil level annual school census were able to identify service children? What measures is he taking to ensure that service children who join and leave within the academic year, and are therefore not counted, are enumerated for funding purposes?

Derek Twigg: The Government have introduced a service indicator in the annual school census to gather evidence of any further issues and to fine-tune support for children, which is important. Our Children's Education Advisory Service is considering the issues of funding and service personnel moving around, and I continue to discuss those issues with colleagues throughout Government. The Command Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently will consider what more can be done on a range of issues, including education.

Kevan Jones: The development of super-garrisons will provide great opportunities for stability for service families, and for stability in the education of their children. In response to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), the Minister told the House that his officials have meetings with local authorities about education. Will he assure me, however, that those meetings are meaningful, and that the necessary planning is taking place not just of what is needed for those super-garrisons, but of the funding that local authorities will need to ensure that education is provided around those new super-garrisons?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend has identified the importance of stability for service families, and one of the benefits of the super-garrisons is that they will increase that stability. A key problem experienced by service personnel is the number of times they have to move, and the effect of that on their children's education. I have given officials a clear direction that planning must include real involvement and detailed discussions about the impact of super-garrisons on a range of services, including health and, in particular, education. I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we take the issue very seriously and will continue to focus on it strongly.

Warships

John Bercow: What changes he expects to make to the numbers of ships and submarines in the Royal Navy in the next three years.

Bob Ainsworth: While the defence programme is kept under regular review, the only planned change in the number of major surface warships in the Royal Navy over the next three years will be the reduction to two aircraft carriers when HMS Invincible is finally withdrawn from service in 2010. However, the number of destroyers in service at any one time may vary as the Type 45 destroyer steadily replaces the Type 42. As previously announced, our fleet of attack submarines will be reduced from nine to eight at the end of this year.

John Bercow: Given the great reluctance with which the Royal Navy accepted the cut in frigate and destroyer totals from 35 to 32 in 1998, and the fact that the Government subsequently cut the number from 32 to 25, will the Minister guarantee that there will be no further cuts?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman tries desperately—as do some of his hon. Friends—to give the impression that the Royal Navy is losing capability, although he knows that the new aircraft carriers that have been ordered will be the biggest ships ever run by the Navy, and that the Type 45 destroyer has a capability well beyond that of the ships that it is replacing. We intend to maintain the Royal Navy as one of the most powerful navies in the world, just as we intend to maintain the capability to build those ships for the Royal Navy.

Linda Gilroy: That reply, and the earlier replies, will interest people who work in the dockyard and the naval base in Plymouth. I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to meet a delegation of trade unionists later this week to discuss the work that will be available to the dockyard in the next few years particularly, but may I ask him to tell the House, for the record, of the importance that he attaches to Plymouth dockyard's ability to carry out not just submarine work but refitting and maintenance of surface ships?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend continues to be assiduous in the interests of her constituency, but she will know that the naval base review has decided that all three naval bases will continue to be needed. We must not only commit ourselves to the continuing use of those bases, but ensure that we preserve the skill base in the areas involved. That applies to Plymouth, as it applies to the Clyde and to Portsmouth. I am pleased to be able to meet my hon. Friend and her delegation—tomorrow, I believe.

Willie Rennie: We welcome the new aircraft carriers that are due to be commissioned from Rosyth dockyard, but does the Minister understand the frustration felt by my constituents and those of the Prime Minister over constant reports of delays? Can he make a clear statement that there will be no delays, or, if there are to be delays, can he explain how the skills will be maintained in yards throughout the country in the meantime?

Bob Ainsworth: There are always rumours in these circumstances, but there is no delay to the in-service dates of the aircraft carriers. We are working with the companies, and progress is being made in establishing the joint venture that is needed to ensure their timely build for the Royal Navy.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the Minister for his responses so far, but for the benefit of this House and of the Opposition party, who are sending out their leaflets in my constituency, will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please just put a supplementary question to the Minister. Do not mention the Opposition party; it can take care of itself.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's commitment to building new, modern ships with a modern capability enables the Royal Navy to discharge its operations both at home and overseas and has contributed to securing Portsmouth naval base's future?

Bob Ainsworth: As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited Portsmouth and seen the good work going on there and its warship build capability. The naval base review is complete and Portsmouth's position is secure within that. Of course we must look at how we maintain that capability and I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to represent her constituency as she has done over the past year during the review. Portsmouth has not only a fantastic Royal Navy history, but a fantastic Navy future as well.

Nicholas Soames: As the Minister knows, however heroically the Navy tries—it does try heroically—its capabilities have been degraded because of the number of its ships and its inevitable inability to carry out the declared tasks that it handled when it had many more ships. How many escorts does the Minister anticipate one of the new carriers will require when it goes to sea?

Bob Ainsworth: There will be sufficient escorts for the carrier task fleets and that will be in line with the defence strategy as laid out to the House. We will make sure that the task fleets are fully capable in every aspect of the work that they need to do in order to give the Royal Navy the kind of power projection it must continue to have in future generations.

Julian Lewis: I shall resist the temptation to describe the Minister's reply to the very specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) in the terms that he has recently made famous, although I point out that the price of the  Hansard on eBay is currently £77. Instead, I remind him that it was made clear in written answers on 9 and 29 October that, on current plans, the amount of attack submarines will go down to seven and the number of frigates and destroyers will go down to 23 unless more orders are placed. Will he now give us a guarantee that the orders will be placed, so that we do not have fewer than the eight attack submarines and the 25 frigates and destroyers promised by the Government in 2004?

Bob Ainsworth: We will make announcements to the House as and when we are ready to do so. The hon. Gentleman continues to try to say that the Royal Navy's capability is not as is needed when he knows that the situation is otherwise. The Type 45 destroyer is one of the most powerful ships afloat, and the carriers will be the biggest ships afloat. The Government have put a considerable amount of shipbuilding into our yards over recent years and will continue to do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

Patrol Vehicles

Robert Flello: What steps he is taking to increase the operational range of protected patrol vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: We take the protection of our servicemen and women very seriously. Since 2003, we have approved over £2 billion of spending on force protection and have delivered Mastiff heavy-protected patrol vehicles to Iraq and Mastiff and Vector light-protected patrol vehicles to Afghanistan. In addition, we are procuring 150 Ridgback medium-protected patrol vehicles, which will be available for deployment to Afghanistan.

Robert Flello: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made on the wider aspects of force protection for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right to say that protected patrol vehicles, which have, rightly, gained a lot of attention, are at the limit of what we need to provide to protect our troops. Over the spending period that I addressed in my original answer, we have developed and improved a range of capabilities: not only protected patrol vehicles; but new body armour, which we continue to develop and consider how it can be improved; communications and surveillance equipment, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles; night-vision equipment, which has been improved significantly; electronic countermeasures for our vehicles and other transport; and, of course, base security. I am sure that the House will understand that I do not want to go into the details of the security measures because I do not want our enemies to know them. I repeat the offer that I consistently make in this House; if Members wish to receive a confidential briefing on those issues, I am happy to give one in the Ministry of Defence.

Crispin Blunt: Given the Secretary of State's remarks to the  Sunday Mail a couple of Sundays ago, and those of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles about the length of time that our forces are likely to remain in Afghanistan, should not our procurement policy now be carried out on the assumption that we are there until further notice?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have consistently said in this House—before the Defence Committee and from this Dispatch Box—and on other opportunities for communication beyond the House that our commitment to Afghanistan is a long-term one. I do not believe that we will be war fighting in the long term, but I do believe that deployable forces requiring the sort of protection and equipment that we have been developing and deploying over the past few years in particular will be the norm for our forces in the future. We intend to take just that approach. We have made progress in readjusting our procurement processes so that they have the agility and ability to respond to the changing environments in which we deploy our troops. We have had considerable success in that regard, particularly over the past couple of years.

European Security and Defence Policy

Greg Hands: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on developments in the European security and defence policy.

Des Browne: I meet my European defence ministerial colleagues regularly, both bilaterally and at meetings of EU Defence Ministers. The most recent meeting of EU Defence Ministers was held in Brussels on 19 November, when we discussed a range of issues including Operation Althea and military capabilities, Chad and the European Defence Agency.

Greg Hands: The new Lisbon treaty contains various unhelpful developments on defence and security policy. For example, the new high representative for the common foreign and security policy will become a vice-chairman of the Commission and will chair the foreign policy aspect of the Council of Ministers; the EU Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry; is calling for a single market in the defence industry and the new solidarity clause has emerged. Will the Secretary of State tell us specifically what assessment he has made of new treaty provisions that are judiciable by the European Court of Justice?

Des Browne: First, the House should know that the new reform treaty text states that NATO
	"remains the foundation of their"
	—the members'—
	"collective defence and the forum for its implementation."
	My assessment of the treaty—I understand that it is widely held to be the correct interpretation, including by some eminent legal authorities—is that it in no way affects current UK military operations. Such operations will not be affected, and decisions about troop deployment will still need to be made unanimously. For the first time, the Lisbon treaty expressly excludes jurisdiction from common foreign and security policy provisions and the Acts adopted under them. So the answer to his question is none.

Michael Clapham: During those discussions, was there any talk about what might be required on Kosovo? Should time be given for a consensual agreement or arrangement to be reached on Kosovo's status?

Des Browne: Kosovo engages the discussions of European Defence Ministers every time we meet and has done so consistently in my experience. The EU stands ready to provide, and is providing, support for training in Kosovo, particularly for the police. The EU's assessment has to be on the basis of what is realistically likely to happen in Kosovo and it is commonly viewed that something approaching the Ahtisaari recommendations is likely to be what will happen on the ground in Kosovo. When that happens—because it is on our doorstep—the EU is required to stand ready to support peace and stability in the country, and will do so.

Liam Fox: Because of our high level of commitment to Iraq and to NATO in Afghanistan, the Government told us that we would have minimal commitment to the French-inspired EU military mission to Chad. We are sending only two officers to Chad, yet we are spending £5.9 million on the mission. Can the Secretary of State tell us what on earth we are spending that money on?

Des Browne: We are making a contribution to stability in that important part of Africa, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that. He knows that although the mission is to Chad, it is important to try to sustain some degree of stability in Sudan to support peace and the peace talks there. That is our contribution. Other parts of Government are making significant contributions to that part of Africa and it would seem distinctly inappropriate were we not to make a contribution that reinforces those wider and greater contributions, financial and otherwise.

Liam Fox: Is not the truth that under Athena we are required to make a financial commitment to the EU operation, and that some of our EU and NATO partners are more willing to fund their EU commitments than their NATO commitments? The UK, the US, the Dutch and the Canadians carry the bulk of the military and financial burden in southern Afghanistan. The US has 15,000 troops and we have almost 8,000, but Spain, for example, has fewer than 800 and Portugal has 163. Is not it clear that the EU's drive towards a common security policy threatens to undermine NATO? With defence, Britain cannot have two best friends; it cannot be both the EU and the United States through NATO.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman asked what the money was for and I told him. He may have been disappointed that the answer was so specific. The mechanism by which the money is paid is not what the money is for, and he asked what the money was for. He tempts me to agree that the EU has no contribution to make to nation building and stability across the world. I do not agree. What NATO offers ought to be at the heart of our military alliance and commitment to peace and security across the world, and our own security. But working with our EU partners comprehensively, we have an opportunity to bring to bear capabilities that NATO does not have and is unlikely ever to have.

Policy Development

Adrian Bailey: What steps he is taking to encourage other Government Departments to take the needs of armed forces personnel and their families into consideration in developing relevant policies.

Bob Ainsworth: The Government are publishing in the spring the first ever cross-Government strategy setting out our vision for supporting service personnel, their families and veterans. Since we announced it, I have been encouraged by the response. The Department of Health has introduced an extension of priority medical treatment to all veterans with a service-attributable condition and, with the MOD, a mental health community pilot scheme. The Department for Communities and Local Government has extended the open market home-buy scheme to members of the armed forces to help make home ownership more achievable in all regions of England, and we intend to remove local connection legislation to ensure fairness for our armed forces in housing allocations.

Adrian Bailey: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the British Legion's Honour the Covenant campaign, which among other things emphasises the need to provide priority medical support for servicemen and their families, and ex-servicemen. Can he tell me what progress is being made?

Bob Ainsworth: The Royal British Legion is part of the group that we are consulting with regard to the Command Paper and it is free to raise whatever issues that it wishes within that process. Additionally, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) has regular meetings with the Royal British Legion and others to chase up issues and to ensure that we respond appropriately to the needs of our armed forces personnel, as well as to those of the veterans' community.

Mastiff Vehicle

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future availability of the Mastiff vehicle.

Des Browne: Procurement of the Mastiff protected patrol vehicle has been a huge success. Just 23 weeks after the decision to procure was taken, Mastiff had been built, upgraded, tested and shipped out to theatre, along with a developed support package. It has proven itself in the field as highly capable and is hugely popular with troops on the ground, providing vital protection with effective mobility.
	With respect to the hon. Lady, I am withholding further information on vehicle availability, as the disclosure of this information would or would be likely to prejudice the security and operational effectiveness of our armed forces, but I extend to her the offer that I have made to her regularly; if she wants to know the detail of that information, I am happy to provide it on a confidential basis in a personal briefing.

Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. He is aware that one of the reasons why the Mastiff vehicle is so popular with our troops and has proved such a success is that enhanced security was designed into the vehicle from the outset in its V-shaped hull. It is built from commercial components, so that if it is, by any chance, hit by a mine, replacements can be easily bolted back on to the vehicle, to ensure that it returns to action in double-quick time. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the future rapid effect system vehicle will exhibit those admirable attributes, which save the lives of British servicemen day by day?

Des Browne: The hon. Lady is consistent in her questioning and in her interest. She has substantial knowledge of the capabilities of protected vehicles, and I commend her for being so consistent and well informed in that regard. I assure her that she is no less informed in relation to these matters than those who have to make the decision about FRES, not least senior officers in the Army.

Topical Questions

Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities.

Des Browne: My departmental responsibilities are to make and execute defence policy, to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they need to achieve success in the military tasks in which they are engaged at home and abroad and to ensure that they are ready to respond to the tasks that might arise in the future.

Norman Baker: When I asked the Secretary of State how many RAF personnel there were at RAF Feltwell, the answer was none. When I asked why, I was told that there was no requirement for any RAF personnel at RAF Feltwell. Is it not time that we acknowledged the reality and started calling such bases US bases? Is it not symptomatic of British defence policy that we pretend to be in control, when we are little more than the back end of a penny-farthing to President Bush?

Des Browne: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman has struck an important point for the defence of the realm in the question that he asked. I will consider the point that he makes about the naming of RAF Feltwell, but I suspect that I will come to the conclusion that we will continue to call it RAF Feltwell.
	There is no question about the independence of our defence policy. However, we are part of the most successful military and political alliance that the world has known in NATO. The Americans are a very valued ally and I make no apology to the House for working closely with them. Among other things, I am proud to say that because of our discussions with the Americans, they will deploy significant additional resources to southern Afghanistan in support of our troops and those of the other countries present there. That is the sort of support that the Americans give us and I am proud of the fact that they are prepared to do it.

John Randall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that none of those armed forces pensioners who have been overpaid will have to pay anything back? If the Treasury will not write off the money, will he have to make cuts in his Department? If so, where?

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman refers to part of a project announced in a written statement to the House on 11 July 2006. Just under 1,300 pensioners have been awarded increases to their pension and 98 cases were reported in the media today. We are making the case for a write-off to the Treasury, and I will not pre-empt its decision.

Dari Taylor: The Minister will acknowledge that the Army cadet movement is excellent and gives young people opportunities that they would otherwise never have had. What is the Ministry of Defence's thinking on the future of the cadet movement and what aims does it have further to develop that excellent movement?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend is honorary colonel of the Durham Army cadet force, which is a privileged position. I thank her for her long-standing support; I know that she takes a significant interest in the cadets. I believe that it is the best youth movement in the country by a mile. I am always delighted to talk to cadets; on a tri-service basis, of course. As she may recall, we announced last year that new combined cadet forces will be set up at six schools. I believe that cadet forces will continue to thrive. They give young people a fantastic experience and many opportunities to do things that they would not normally do. As I say, I think that it is the best youth service in the country.

Nick Harvey: What assessment have the Government made of the new Polish Government's attitude to ballistic missile defence, particularly since the Russians sent a visitor to Warsaw warning of the implications of such a scheme? Also, what assessment have the Government made of changing opinion in the Czech Republic? In the light of those developments, is it not time that we had a debate on the subject in the House?

Des Browne: As I understand it, the Polish Government's position on ballistic missile defence is that they are discussing the possibility of basing some missiles on their soil, under an agreement with the United States of America. I am not, and would not be expected to be, in a position to report the detail of those discussions to the House. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, along with the rest of us, to see how those discussions take place and what their outcome is. As for holding a debate in the House on ballistic missile defence, we have regular debates on defence issues. I had some research done and, to my knowledge, since I have been Secretary of State for Defence, on only one occasion has someone made a contribution on the subject of ballistic missile defence in one of those debates. That is how much demand there is for such a debate, despite the posturing of members of his party outside the House.

Mark Pritchard: With a decision on the future rapid effect system utility variant vehicle expected before April 2008, will the Secretary of State confirm his views are on the sharing of intellectual property once that decision has been made? Would it be better for Britain to have the French VBCI vehicle, or the General Dynamics vehicle? We know about the track record of General Dynamics on sharing intellectual property.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman asks an appropriate and specific question. If he and the House will excuse me, I would prefer to put the answer in writing, because it raises a number of issues of some complexity. I am conscious of all the issues that he mentioned and when we make decisions on utility vehicles, their procurement and deployment, and the sharing of information, we will take them all into account.

Graham Allen: Before the next Cabinet meeting, will the Secretary of State meet his colleague, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, to discuss the bar on Departments sponsoring academies and to discuss building on the excellent work of Skill Force, which is based in my shire? The Secretary of State will know that people who retire from the Army can be, in a sense, recycled: they can put their knowledge to good use in good works such as helping young people to get back into work, or to get the skills that they need. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families whether the Ministry of Defence could consider sponsoring an academy?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend raises an important issue regarding the involvement of ex-service personnel in Skill Force and the excellent work that they do. In fact, a year or so ago, not long after I was appointed to my post, I went to Knowsley and Skelmersdale to see the work that the organisation does and I was extremely impressed. I cannot comment on his proposal that the MOD sponsor an academy, but there have been discussions with the Department for Children, Schools and Families about the general issue of academy sponsorship. As he knows, however, there is an important opportunity, particularly for cadet forces, so I can assure him that we will continue to have discussions with my colleagues in that Department on the issue.

David Amess: In the light of weekend reports, will the Secretary of State give details of future troop withdrawals from Iraq, bearing in mind the number of our constituents who write to us about the military covenant, suggesting that our British servicewomen and men are not treated well, either in service or when they leave service? [Official Report, 28 January 2008, Vol. 471; c. 2MC.]

Des Browne: I refute the assertion that our servicemen are not treated well either in or after service. I do not demur from my responsibility to meet the challenge of increased expectations in the 21st century, particularly those resulting from the deployments in which we have asked our servicemen and women to take part. We have made significant improvements, day by day, week by week, year by year, in that regard.
	As for specific numbers, there is a constant assertion, often fed by politicians, that information about troop numbers in Iraq is erroneous. It is not. Troop numbers were reduced to about 4,500 before the turn of the year. Indeed, only last week there were 4,330 troops in Iraq, but that number fluctuates because of rest and recuperation, and sometimes because of temporary troop deployments. It is of no help to families who have to live with those concerns to suggest that information is inaccurate, as that is not the case. They are general figures, but the trend is for a reduction. We will meet the reduction that we announced in the House and when appropriate we will make another statement about a reduction in numbers.

Crispin Blunt: There are alarming reports that the joint strike fighter is in deep trouble with its principal customer—the United States air force—which would have catastrophic consequences for our forward defence equipment programme, which is already unaffordable, 10 years out. Will the Secretary of State make a statement?

Des Browne: I am happy to deal with the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, in relation to the facts, not in relation to speculation or rumour. I will be in touch with him and I will put a copy of the letter in the House setting out our understanding of the position on the joint strike fighter in relation to the American programme.

Dawn Butler: My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) referred earlier to ex-service personnel and their relationship with local authorities. Will the Minister tell the House what steps he has taken to ensure that serving personnel are made aware of their key worker status when applying for housing?

Bob Ainsworth: We are going to use all the methods available to us, including internal communications, service publications, websites and any other method we can use, to make sure that our service personnel are aware of their eligibility in that regard.

Michael Jack: Sir Glenn Torpy, Chief of the Air Staff, has indicated that Ministers are considering 0, 44 and 88 as the number of aircraft in tranche 3 of the Eurofighter programme. Will the Minister who responds confirm that those are the options that are being considered, and can he give an indication to the thousands of aerospace workers in my constituency as to when a decision will be made?

Des Browne: As we always say in relation to these issues, when there is an announcement to be made we will make it to the House of Commons. When there is a further announcement to be made about Eurofighter, we will make it here. I do not think that it serves anyone to feed speculation by putting numbers into the public domain for consideration prior to our making a decision. When a decision is made, we will say it here.

Lindsay Hoyle: This year is the Territorial Army's centenary. I am sure that Ministers would like to congratulate it on its past, present and future service, and on the commitment that it has shown, and continues to show, in support of the regular forces. Will they ensure that the TA does not suffer the cuts that have been proposed, so that that organisation, which is second to none, can continue?

Bob Ainsworth: We need to look at the role that our reserve forces—not only the Territorial Army, but other reserves as well—play in our armed forces. They have made a tremendous contribution and we need to make sure that our planning properly reflects their capability.

Patrick Mercer: Can the Secretary of State explain why every British combat unit currently serving in Iraq is seriously under strength?

Des Browne: I do not accept that the combat units serving in Iraq are seriously undertrained; in fact, the opposite is the case. We specifically ensure that the forces deployed into the operational theatres are appropriately trained for their operations. That may mean on some occasions that the training needs to take place partly here and partly in the operational theatre. However, I do not accept that the forces being deployed are undertrained for what they are being asked to do.

Northern Rock

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Rock. The House will understand that it was necessary to issue a statement to the markets with our proposals before the start of trading this morning in the usual way. Copies of that statement and the accompanying Treasury press release are available in the Vote Office.
	Next week, I shall publish proposals for strengthening depositor protection and the supervision of banks, but today let me set out how we intend to meet the previously stated objectives of the Government, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England with regard to Northern Rock, as well as the background against which we make our proposals.
	The proposal that I set out today for a solution to Northern Rock, which is underpinned by Government support, is one that best meets our objectives of protecting taxpayers and depositors and maintaining financial stability. I will set out the reasons for that in greater detail. In the meantime, I can confirm that the existing Government guarantee arrangements to depositors will remain in place. Savers' money, therefore, remains safe and secure.
	The House will recall that at the end of last summer, following the problems in the US mortgage market, Northern Rock found it increasingly difficult and then impossible to raise the billions of pounds that it needed to finance its business. It was completely exposed; it had no plan B. Northern Rock was therefore forced to ask the Bank of England for support to allow it to continue to operate. The Government agreed to that support because, in the then prevailing conditions, there was a serious risk that other parts of the banking system would be destabilised. That support was successful and prevented further contagion, and the decision was wholeheartedly supported by right hon. and hon. Members of this House.
	As the House knows, the Government have announced guarantee arrangements for depositors' money saved with Northern Rock. In October and December, we also provided further guarantees and funding arrangements to give the company the time that it needed to try to find a solution to its problems. At that time, I said that I would ask Northern Rock to come back with proposals no later than mid-February this year. Those guarantee arrangements, including the extension in December, have not been called and there has therefore been no cost to the taxpayer. However, the arrangements remain necessary and will be in place for the time being.
	Equally, Bank of England lending is secured against Northern Rock's assets such as high quality mortgages, assessed by the Financial Services Authority as being of good quality. Again, there has therefore been no cost to the taxpayer. Let me make it clear that the Government's position, which I reiterated most recently during the Treasury Committee sitting on 10 January, is that a private sector solution for Northern Rock is the preferable route for meeting our three objectives, but that that cannot be at any cost. If it does not prove possible to secure a proposal that meets our stated objectives and conditions, it will be necessary to take Northern Rock into temporary public ownership. For that reason, it would be irresponsible to rule that out.
	Despite intensive efforts over the last few months, and as a result of uncertain market conditions across the world, it has proved impossible for Northern Rock to find a purely commercial solution. In the autumn, market conditions were such that banks became increasingly reluctant to lend on terms that would have been acceptable. As the House will be aware, banks right across the world are having to make substantial provisions. While conditions are better now than they were before Christmas, they remain difficult, and the Government's financial advisers believe that there is no chance of achieving a private sector deal backed entirely with private finance in the near future.
	Before I turn to my proposal, let me first deal with the question of putting the company into administration, as some have suggested. Administration would mean that control would immediately pass to an administrator who would look to realise the value of the company's assets, which, under current market conditions, would amount to a fire sale. It could also exacerbate current market turbulence, and costs would be significant. I have therefore rejected such a proposal.
	My proposal today is one in which Northern Rock is owned and run in the private sector as a commercial bank, and where the Government provide a backstop guarantee to make private financing possible in the current market conditions. I believe that this company should be managed within private sector disciplines and management, provided that we can do so on terms that properly protect taxpayers' interests.
	Let me now set out in greater detail how this proposal will meet our objectives of protecting the taxpayer, protecting consumers and promoting financial stability. Northern Rock would raise the funds that it needs from investors by selling assets. The Treasury would guarantee payment to those investors in the event that the assets were insufficient to meet its obligations, for which Northern Rock would pay the Treasury a fee. In this arrangement, shareholders and other providers of capital in Northern Rock accept the first risk, with the Government acting as a backstop. According to the Financial Services Authority, Northern Rock has a good quality loan book. In normal market conditions, such a guarantee would be unnecessary. However, in the current circumstances, to attract a wide range of investors on acceptable terms that protect the public interest, a guarantee is necessary. If this proposal is accepted, it would mean that all of the Bank of England's current loan facilities for the company are repaid in full, with interest, up front, upon completion of the transaction.
	Our willingness to put this support in place depends entirely on the terms on which a deal can be struck. I will authorise support for the private sector only if the public interest will be better served than through taking the company into temporary public ownership. In addition to this, any acceptable proposal would need to comply with clear conditions. The company will need to demonstrate how it can operate sustainably in future without Government support, and we will favour proposals that reach that point quickly. New private sector capital will be needed, so that the private sector—not the taxpayer—takes the burden of risk for commercial success or failure. So long as the Government continue to provide a backstop guarantee, we will require restrictions on any sale of the company and on dividend payments.
	To allow this financing structure to be explored, the Treasury and the Bank of England will make arrangements to extend the Bank of England's loan facility until 17 March, by which time we must submit a restructuring plan to the European Commission. The proposals would involve private sector participation in the financing of Northern Rock and would also provide the taxpayer with the ability to share in the potential upside returns, as business conditions improve, in return for the financial support provided to the company.
	The Government will make their decision as to which proposal we can, as provider of support, accept, and with the Bank of England and the FSA, we will consider proposals received by 4 February from potential interested parties, including the company itself. Any proposals, either as a result of this support or public ownership, are highly likely to need state aid clearance and will therefore be dependent on approval by the European Commission.
	The Government have already started discussions with the company and with the two parties that have publicly stated an interest in the company. The Government are also ready to have discussions with any other interested parties.
	Let me make it clear that if the solution I have outlined proves not to be possible on terms that protect the public interest, then a temporary period of public ownership will be necessary. Legislation is being prepared, should it be necessary, and would make provision for an independent valuer to decide on the level of compensation to be made to shareholders. The principles for assessing that compensation would be based on the company's not receiving public support and on all specific financial assistance from the Bank of England or Government having come to an end. This is set out more fully in the statement to the markets issued earlier today.
	It is for the independent Office for National Statistics to determine whether Northern Rock is classified to the public sector in the national accounts. Any liabilities classified to the public sector would be temporary and backed by significant assets, and do not represent any meaningful measure of fiscal sustainability. The code for fiscal stability, underpinned by legislation passed by this House, provides for such situations. We would also address the future of the Northern Rock Foundation in the event of temporary public ownership.
	The proposal that I have outlined today meets our stated objectives of protecting the taxpayer, protecting depositors and maintaining financial stability.
	Northern Rock got into the difficulties it faced because of global market conditions. The Government agreed to Bank of England support for Northern Rock because of the destabilising risk to the rest of the financial system and also provided guarantees to protect depositors. Both of those objectives have been met. We now need to reach a solution that leaves the greatest risk with the company, yet will allow taxpayers to profit from any future sale.
	Ideally, the best solution would have been a private sector one without any Government support, but in the current uncertain market conditions, that is not possible. Administration, with the resulting fire sale of the company's assets, would not be in the public interest. Temporary public ownership—nationalisation—remains an option, however even those who advocate it now see it as a stepping-stone to the return of Northern Rock to the private sector, which would involve Government support. In the meantime, the company would require continuing financial support, which would leave the public sector bearing all of the risk.
	The proposal I have outlined today is the right one. It provides a Government guarantee that enables a commercial solution in which the private sector raises finance and bears risk. It also offers the prospect of withdrawing Government support more quickly and is therefore most likely to meet our stated objectives and conditions. I commend this statement to the House.

George Osborne: May I thank the Chancellor for finally telling Parliament what the Prime Minister told his press pack, and apparently Richard Branson, on his way to China last Friday? Nothing of substance that the Chancellor said today is not already plastered over this morning's newspapers and blogs, once again reminding us of how marginal a figure the Chancellor now cuts in this process. Let us also remind ourselves of the huge damage that the first bank run for 140 years has done to Britain. The Chancellor prayed in aid in his statement the advice of his financial advisers, Goldman Sachs. This is what Goldman Sachs is advising its other clients:
	"The Northern Rock factor has badly dented the UK's reputation for being the world's pre-eminent financial centre".
	I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman now implicitly agrees with me that full nationalisation would destroy that reputation altogether. To use his own language, I am glad that what looked like the Chancellor's plan A just a week ago has, after Prime Minister's questions, become the Government's plan B.
	The Chancellor should be more straight with people about the real consequences of his latest attempt to get out of the mess created by Labour's economic incompetence— [ Interruption. ] Can he confirm that he wants the taxpayers of Britain to provide— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the shadow Chancellor ask his question.

George Osborne: Can the Chancellor confirm that he wants the taxpayers of Britain to provide a £25 billion mortgage to Northern Rock for years to come? Add in the guarantees to depositors and that figure comes to £55 billion. That is £2,000 for every family in the country: a second mortgage on every home to rescue the reputation of this Government. No British Government have ever provided taxpayers' support on this scale to a private company. It is bigger than British Leyland, bigger than British Steel—this is back to the 1970s. Life in Brown's Britain is like an episode of "Life On Mars".
	Can the Chancellor answer questions on these three specific issues? First, will he stop pretending that this is, as he said in the final paragraph of his statement, a commercial solution? In truth, it is a part-nationalisation because the Government take the bulk of the risk and the private sector takes the bulk of the upside. Alliance and Leicester has gone into the market and borrowed at 7 per cent., but thanks to the taxpayer, Northern Rock's new owners will be borrowing at Government rates. If it goes under, of course, it will be the British taxpayer who pays the price. It is no wonder that Northern Rock's shares have soared 40 per cent. on a day on which the stock market has fallen.
	The second issue I want to press the Chancellor on is the growing risk to the taxpayer that this deal represents. Will he confirm that the difference in the cost of capital means that Northern Rock will be getting an effective Government subsidy for years to come? Some estimate that the subsidy is worth more than £1 billion in total. That is more than 20 times the cost of funding this year's police pay settlement in full. What is his estimate? How much will the fee that he mentioned recoup of that £1 billion subsidy? Will he confirm that buried away in his statement is the proposal that the bonds issued by the Government can be used not just to repay the Bank of England loan, but to provide adequate liquidity for the company? How much could that cost?
	What does this whole deal mean for public finances? We already have the worst budget deficit in Europe, and we have learned from today's dismal public finance figures that the Treasury has borrowed £44 billion so far this year, exceeding the estimates given by the Chancellor to this House. Will he confirm, as he admits, that if the ONS treats the Government as the true economic owner of the liabilities, he will shatter the sustainable investment rule? He says that the measure is only temporary, but the whole point of the deal is that it could be permanent. As ever, the Government's answer to every economic problem is further debt.
	The third and final issue for the Chancellor to consider is how long the Northern Rock saga will go on. The right hon. Gentleman's statement made no mention of the length of term of the bonds, yet the press have been briefed by the Prime Minister's travelling entourage that they will last for five years. Which is it? Will the Chancellor tell Parliament what someone else is telling the press on the other side of the world? What will the time scale be?
	In September, the Chancellor said that he was providing a little short-term support to help Northern Rock get through its difficulties. Since then, we have had five months of dithering. Today, the taxpayer could possibly be in hock for five years. The Government could have secured a private sale before the bank run. They could have done today's deal back in September, if they were so keen on it, at a much cheaper price. They could have passed legislation to protect retail depositors, as we proposed, back in October. They could have considered the options of a Bank of England-led reconstruction. Labour Members dismissed that, but when the Chancellor unveils his plans next week he will suggest that in future crises the FSA has the powers to take organisations such as Northern Rock into an effective form of administration. Labour Members will all be voting for that in a couple of weeks' time.
	Of course, the Chancellor did none of those things. He dithered and delayed. The result is that the British taxpayer is being asked to lend billions of pounds for years to come to salvage the reputation of the Prime Minister and his Chancellor. Labour is saddling everyone in Britain with a second mortgage, and that is the price that we are all now paying for its economic incompetence.

Alistair Darling: Listening to the shadow Chancellor, it is clear that he has not a clue what he would do. He has no constructive policies to offer. At least the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, has a statable case and a policy. The principal Opposition party has no policy whatsoever. Indeed, ever since Northern Rock got into these difficulties, it has been clear that the official Opposition's position has been completely incoherent and inconsistent.
	Last September, when we offered Bank of England support to Northern Rock, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wholeheartedly supported it. Two days later, he said that he backed the guarantees and supported the Bank of England action. However, all last autumn, at every opportunity, the official Opposition sought to run away from the consequences of making that decision. Even last weekend, the Leader of the Opposition said that he ruled out nationalisation, but on Monday, when he was asked about nationalisation and administration, he said that he needed to consider both options. Far from ruling out negotiation, he was ready to consider both options.
	On the subject of administration, it is interesting that last week we heard day after day that the Conservatives had two policies. The first was that the Governor of the Bank of England should restructure the bank—by the way, the bank would have to be nationalised to allow the Bank of England to have the necessary control to do that. The alternative policy was to put the bank into administration—in other words, to bankrupt the thing. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor should talk about administration last week, because two months earlier he said:
	"The winding up of the bank would pose a significant risk to the tax payers money".
	That was his position in November, but it is completely different today.
	On the subject of the shadow Chancellor's questions, I have set out my proposals, which will form the basis of negotiations in the discussions with both the bidders who have expressed an interest in acquiring the bank or in being part of its future as well as with the board. Obviously the terms and conditions clearly need to be discussed and negotiated. I shall continue to report to the House to ensure that it is kept fully informed.
	I have to tell the shadow Chancellor—I appreciate that he is starting from a position where he has no position—that it would be ideal if we could find a purely commercial solution to the problem. However, in the current conditions, there is no way that that will be possible in the foreseeable future. One could put the bank into administration, but that would happen at a considerable cost and could exacerbate market conditions.
	One could take the bank into temporary public ownership, but, during that period, the Government would continue to be at risk and public support would be needed to get the bank out of temporary nationalisation into a commercial future.
	Alternatively, we could pursue a chance of getting commercial money, whereby people can invest in the bank and bear the first risk and the taxpayer can gain when market conditions improve. I believe that that is the right thing to do, and that my position is properly thought out and worth exploring. The Opposition have shown that they are bereft of ideas.

Doug Henderson: Unlike the shadow Chancellor, the people of the north-east of England recognise that, first, the Government's first responsibility is for the stability of our financial markets in this country and, secondly, the long-term interests of Northern Rock and the consequential jobs are also key issues. Contrary to the views that are likely to be expressed by Liberal Democrat Members, people in the north-east do not perceive premature nationalisation as a way forward that will meet either principal objective.
	Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a delegation of workers' representatives from the bank so that they can express their concerns and hear more about the Government's proposals?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I would be happy to meet him and representatives of the bank's work force. I fully understand that it is an uncertain time for them. I therefore hope that the Government's proposals today will enable an acceptable solution to be found. As I said to hon. Members, there are many difficulties to overcome and we must proceed cautiously, but I believe that we are doing the right thing.
	My hon. Friend is also right that the Government's objective throughout has been to ensure stability. In the past 10 years, there has been sustained growth in the wider economy, with historically low interest—and, therefore, mortgage—rates, and record numbers of people in work. That has been reflected in the financial markets. We had to respond to difficult circumstances, which started in the United States sub-prime market and have affected markets throughout the world. As all hon. Members concede, we are going through a difficult period. Everything we do should be geared towards greater stability. The Conservative party's proposals would not add to that.

Vincent Cable: I congratulate the Chancellor on brilliant originality. The Government, through their bond guarantees, are solemnly undertaking to repay the Government. The taxpayer is standing behind the taxpayer and we have a private sector solution without private money as well as nationalisation of liabilities and losses and privatisation of profits. It requires a special sort of genius to dream up such an idea and I hope that the Government's financial advisers have been well rewarded.
	I am tempted to recall the Danish economist, Hans Christian Andersen, who told the story of the two conmen who visited a particularly credulous king to sell him an imaginary suit of gold to cover his nakedness. We have a naked King Gordon, desperately trying to cover his embarrassment over the "n" word "nationalisation".
	It was said this morning in the City that the financial value in the insurance markets of the guarantee of the bonds was £2 billion. Since the private buyers are not providing that money, where will it come from? Are we talking about a guarantee of a guarantee? How else will it be funded?
	The Chancellor said that there would be a profit-sharing arrangement between taxpayers and the private owner, but no numbers were given. Is it true, as the  Financial Times reported this morning, that the proposal is likely to be for a 5 to 10 per cent. Government equity stake, with 95 to 90 per cent. of the uplift going to the private owner? If the proposal is of that order of magnitude, what is the position, if there is to be profit sharing, of the Northern Rock Foundation? The Chancellor mentioned it in the context not of profit sharing but of nationalisation.
	Since we have heard from the north-east of England, the Chancellor will know that the Treasury's private sale document made not a single, solitary reference to jobs or the future of the region, so what is its role under the proposals?
	This morning, the BBC's political correspondent described Mr. Branson as the "cat what got the cream". I do not know what that is, but Mr. Branson appears to be the Government's preferred bidder. Can the Chancellor tell us what Mr. Branson is going to contribute? My understanding is that he is proposing to put in £250 million in kind, not cash, to acquire a bank worth £100 billion, or 40 times that value. He has never run a bank, and I believe that the profits will be routed through a Caribbean tax haven, so what benefit does the taxpayer derive from his participation?
	Finally, as the Conservative spokesman has already noted, Northern Rock shares have soared, while the British and other international stock markets have fallen. The only cheerful faces this morning were those of the two equity fund investors who made a speculative punt on Northern Rock a few months ago and have now recouped their investment. Meanwhile, the taxpayer in being taken for a very big ride. That will continue until the Government adopt the honest, transparent solution of taking the bank into public ownership.

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman has argued for the nationalisation of Northern Rock for some time, but he would accept that if the Government do that, many of the issues that he has raised still come into play. He has said on a number of occasions that he does not think that the long-term future of the bank lies in being publicly owned. He sees nationalisation as a temporary step back into the public sector, and I agree that if it came to that, that would be precisely the position that we should adopt, because the long-term future of the bank cannot lie with being run by the Government.
	The hon. Gentleman must accept, therefore, that if the bank is nationalised, the risks to which he referred will remain with the Government, and that money from the private sector investors does not come immediately into the bank, so the Government will have to fund that. In any event, if the bank is subsequently transferred into the private sector, which he and I agree would be the right thing to do, under current market conditions it is likely that similar Government guarantees to those that I am proposing today would have to apply then, too.
	The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that he wants to nationalise today. I believe that the better option, if we can do this on the right terms and conditions—the hon. Gentleman raises some very fair points about this—is to explore whether we can bring those private investors into Northern Rock now, which would enable the Bank of England's lending to be repaid with interest, which is one of the demands that has been made time and time again in the House, and rightly so.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about profit sharing and the financing details, which can be resolved only during the course of negotiation. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, I will of course keep the House informed about that. In relation to the prospective bidders, two have publicly expressed an interest and the Government are talking to both of them, while the company's existing board is also considering proposals. All those will be considered, along with any others that are made in the next few days.

John McFall: It has been suggested that Mr. Branson is putting £250 million of his own money into the company by selling Virgin Money to Northern Rock, but estimates in the City indicate that that company is worth about £50 million. I would not like to think that Richard Branson was getting that £250 million from what Northern Rock was paying him for a company that is worth only £50 million, so transparency is of the utmost importance for the Government and others. I would encourage the Chancellor to have other companies coming in before 4 February, so that we can have a vibrant exchange and a vibrant sale.
	On 19 November, the Chancellor told me that he would seek to pursue the interests of the taxpayer, promote financial stability and safeguard consumers. Is he satisfied that today's new proposal gives equal weight to those three objectives? If he is, will he say how he will ensure that?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement just a few moments ago, what I am proposing today is consistent with the statement of principles that I published on 19 November—that is, to protect the taxpayer's interest, which is extremely important; to look after the interests of the depositors, which has always been a concern; and to achieve wider stability. All the proposals that are currently available—that is, the board's proposal and the Virgin and Olivant bids—involve those companies raising money from investors. In other words, they will have to put money into the company to ensure that it can continue to operate. The proposal that I have set out today will also mean that the Bank of England's money that has been lent to Northern Rock can be repaid with interest, which is precisely what we wanted to achieve.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the final proposal, but we have not got to that stage yet. That is something that needs to be discussed, which is why negotiations are taking place. I made a point of saying in my statement that all options need to remain on the table, including that of a temporary period of public ownership, because there are conditions in relation to what I am proposing today. We need to ensure that we look after the interests of taxpayers as well as ensuring wider stability and continuing to look after the depositors. These are difficult times, and the conditions are not ideal, but I believe that what I am suggesting is the best way possible to proceed, and that the proposals ought to be supported on that basis.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor agree that, a few months ago, it was obvious that, in order to protect financial stability, it would be necessary to give guarantees to depositors and to achieve a quick, orderly work-out of the situation at minimum risk to taxpayers, in circumstances in which it has long been obvious that no purely private sector or commercial solution was going to be remotely possible? After five months of delay, are we not now being offered a proposal that will be of benefit to the shareholders in Northern Rock, including hedge funds, who will find that their shares have been given a value by this statement that they would not otherwise have had, and to future investors in Northern Rock, whoever they might be, who will find that the Government and the taxpayer are taking on an open-ended commitment to take all the principal risk involved? This is surely the result of dithering and delay, and of political considerations getting in the way of the speedy decision making and the orderly work-out that could have been achieved even before Christmas.

Alistair Darling: I agree with the first part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It was necessary for the Bank of England to intervene, and it was right to offer guarantees on the depositors' money. We have common ground on those points. Throughout last autumn, considerable efforts were made to find a solution to the problems at Northern Rock, either by merger or by acquisition or through other proposals. Some interest was initially expressed by other banks and financial institutions but, as the financial markets tightened last autumn, it became increasingly obvious that that solution was not going to be possible. In the late autumn, interest was expressed by Virgin, by Olivant and then by another private equity group which subsequently withdrew. It became obvious to us that, without some degree of Government support, nothing was going to happen. That is why we commissioned Goldman Sachs to advise us.
	I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, had it been possible to get a quick sale in the autumn, that option would have been highly desirable. Unfortunately, the conditions in the financial markets made that totally impossible. It would have been far more preferable, as I said in my statement, if we could have found a purely commercial solution. However, that is not going to be possible in the foreseeable future, as I am sure he recognises.

Jim Cousins: Whoever the future owner of Northern Rock might be, will the Chancellor assure me and the people of the north-east that he is in this for the long haul and that he will prevent the dumping of its assets—its workers and its mortgage book—into a falling market, where they will be bound to fetch far less than they are worth?

Alistair Darling: That is precisely what would happen if the company were to be put into administration as the shadow Chancellor has suggested. In the current conditions, which are there for all to see, if the administrator were required to start realising the company's assets, there would undoubtedly be a loss, given the present mortgage conditions and today's market. That was recognised by the shadow Chancellor himself only two months ago. He has changed his tune now, and we shall wait with great interest to see what his policy will be tomorrow morning. I do not expect that he has any more idea about that than I do.

Alan Beith: The Chancellor was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) of the importance of the Northern Rock Foundation, which is of immense value to communities throughout the region. What assessment has he made of the potential impact of his current proposals on the Northern Rock Foundation and its share of profits?

Alistair Darling: The Northern Rock Foundation is very important not just to the north-east of England but to the north-west as well. The proposed bidders in the company are well aware of this issue and how greatly the foundation is valued. I cannot today say precisely what will happen, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we take this matter extremely seriously. The Northern Rock Foundation derived a great deal of income from Northern Rock plc, so for very obvious reasons there is bound to be a difference in the future. I recognise the foundation's importance and it has already had meetings with Treasury officials; those discussions will continue.

Fraser Kemp: I welcome the Chancellor's statement. Many others in the north-east as well as myself believe that this is a practical, realistic and imaginative solution to a problem that is not the making of anyone in the House but whose consequences we face in the financial markets. It secures the objective of protecting the taxpayer and offers real hope of long-term viability for a company that is very important for the north-east. Those of us who represent north-east constituencies will have many thousands of constituents who work for the company. I welcome the proposal; above all, it will end the damaging uncertainty that the company has faced— [Interruption.] I am asked what is the question. Does the Chancellor agree that ending the uncertainty is the most important consideration because it has been a critical factor in causing the damage? The Chancellor's deadline is welcome, so let us hope that we can get a private buyer in place by then.

Alistair Darling: On the last point, I said in my statement at the beginning of October, when guarantee arrangements were put in place, that I wanted the company to come back by mid-February at the latest. We have a deadline in respect of state aid approvals of the middle of March, so matters do need to be brought to a head. As I said in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), market conditions over the last few months have been extremely difficult. While they are better now, a great deal of uncertainty remains. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of Northern Rock to the north-east of England. Not just the foundation, but the bank itself is an important employer. We still have a lot of ground to cover with difficult negotiations ahead. That is why I say that all options remain on the table. I will not rule out the option of a temporary period of public ownership, but I greatly take to heart what my hon. Friend said.

Michael Fallon: Is the Chancellor aware that the Swedish taxpayer still owns 20 per cent. of Sweden's largest bank 16 years after the Government stepped in there? He told the exchange this morning that he expects Northern Rock to operate without Government support "in due course". How would he define "in due course"?

Alistair Darling: As I said to the shadow Chancellor, and in my statement, I want to bring about a position whereby the company can stand on its own feet as quickly as possible. I cannot today—these discussions are continuing—set out a specific timetable, but it is important for the Government to provide backstop back-up to the bank's proposals. I would have a great deal more sympathy and listen with greater interest to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues if they actually had a solution themselves, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they have no idea what they would do. I do have a plan.

Stuart Bell: It was perfectly appropriate for the Chancellor to refer in his statement to uncertain financial conditions throughout the world, which are enduring, long-lasting and perturbing the markets to this day. It is also perfectly right to defend the taxpayer and depositors. Building on the questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), when the Chancellor meets representatives of the work force, will he tell them that his patient approach to solving this difficult problem is also in their interests?

Alistair Darling: As I have said on several occasions, having taken the difficult decision to provide support to Northern Rock in the first place last September, we must have the conviction to see it through. I am therefore disappointed that, having received wholehearted support from the Leader of the Opposition—he has now departed from the Chamber, but I am sure that he will remember those words—he is now running away from it.

Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor appreciate the irony that the present world credit crisis is largely due to excessive securitisation of loans—a bankers' ramp, which he is now joining? Does he hope that the Chinese will start buying his loans to Northern Rock when he has securitised them into bonds?

Alistair Darling: Not exactly, no. The difficulties in the US sub-prime market, which started the present problems, were primarily caused by the fact that, it would appear, too many lenders did not know whom they had lent to and had no idea of the true value of the assets on which those loans were secured. Securitisation in itself is not a bad thing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. What matters is whether lenders know what they are doing. If only some of those who had lent to householders in America over the past few years had realised that those borrowers did not have enough income to support the loan repayments, and their houses were not worth anything like what was claimed, we might not be in the difficulties that we are in today.

Chris Mullin: I am sure that the 1,100 Northern Rock employees based in my constituency will welcome the Chancellor's statement today. May I press him a little further, however, on the future of the Northern Rock Foundation? In his statement, he says that he will address it, "in the event of temporary public ownership". However, many people in the north-east, especially those voluntary organisations that are dependent on the help that they receive from the Northern Rock Foundation, will want him to press the interests of the foundation regardless of whom the owner is. Please will he clarify that point?

Alistair Darling: Yes, we will. I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that I recognise the importance of the foundation. My point was that in the event that we had to take the bank into a period of public ownership, we would have to provide for that. If the proposals as set out today come to fruition, I know that the company and the bidders are acutely aware of the importance of the foundation and will want to do what they can to help. This is one of the many problems that need to be sorted out and addressed, but I assure my hon. Friend and other Members who represent north-east constituencies that we are well aware of the problem and will do whatever we can to help. These are, however, difficult decisions and difficult times.

Iain Duncan Smith: I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how much more confident we feel now that we know Chancellor Baldrick has a cunning plan. Does the Chancellor not think that allowing one of the potential bidders for Northern Rock to go on a visit to China and have an unminuted discussion about Northern Rock with the Prime Minister smacks of impropriety at almost any level?

Alistair Darling: On this side of the House, we do not believe in imposing travel restrictions.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he can safely ignore the opportunism of those on the Conservative Front Bench and particularly their irresponsible attitude to administration? As he nears the final stage of the complex and difficult negotiations in which he is involved, will he take it from us that we look to him to get the best possible deal for the public sector in those negotiations, and that the position that he has taken on a temporary period of nationalisation will greatly strengthen his hand in doing so?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I agree with his comments about administration. I also agree that our proposals today represent an opportunity to try to resolve the matter. As I said, however, many matters still need to be discussed, and I hope that we can get on with that over the next few weeks.

John Redwood: When £25 billion was first advanced by the Bank of England, it did not appear that the usual banking disciplines over how and when the money would be repaid were put in place. Now the Chancellor says that he can get the money back with interest, which is welcome, but at the expense of a guarantee. Will he now put in place proper banking disciplines so that the guarantees can be run off quickly, as the market will allow, and taxpayers do not have the guarantee hanging around their heads in perpetuity?

Alistair Darling: As I said a few moments ago, I hope that the guarantees can be lifted as soon as is appropriate. That will be one of the subjects under discussion.
	I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said on 15 January:
	"Putting Northern Rock into administration could lead to a fire sale of assets, and might result in taxpayers not getting all our money back."
	I could not have put it better myself. The right hon. Gentleman might like to have a word with his colleague.

Michael Meacher: Given that the consequences of the sub-prime market fiasco which brought down Gord—Northern Rock—

Hon. Members: Brought down Gordon Brown!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Michael Meacher: Given that those consequences have now spread more deeply across the economy with the undermining of the bond insurers, when will my right hon. Friend tackle the real underlying causes of the debacle, namely the use of securitisation with no proper risk management and no cross-border supervision, weak and inadequate banking regulation, the widespread use of exotic financial derivatives which are frankly designed to deceive, and an auditing system that involves far too cosy a relationship with the banks themselves?

Alistair Darling: As I said in my statement, I will publish proposals for strengthening the banking supervisory system next week, but as I told the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) a few moments ago, I do not think that securitisation in itself is a problem. The problem arises when institutions do not know what they are doing: when they are lending money and do not know the true value of the asset against which they are lending, and when they cannot be confident that repayments will be made. Those problems need to be tackled at national level, but—as I have also said on a number of occasions—they need to be tackled at international level as well. That is why we have made proposals to the International Monetary Fund and to the Financial Stability Forum, which we will discuss at the G7 in Tokyo in about three weeks' time.

Stewart Hosie: The run on Northern Rock— although not the reason for it—coincided with the Bank of England's not increasing liquidity last September, a month after the Government knew of Northern Rock's liquidity difficulties and after the European Central Bank and the United States Federal Reserve had increased liquidity. Since that period, the Government have announced new powers for the Financial Services Authority and consulted on protection of depositors' savings.
	The Chancellor told us today that he would make a statement on some of those matters next week. May I ask him whether the necessary changes to protect depositors' savings—the changes to the tripartite arrangement, with new powers for the FSA and clear rules for liquidity—will be in place before an acquisition or a nationalisation? It would be perverse if £50 billion of taxpayers' money continued to be used to guarantee liabilities in one form or another, and the changes that the Government wish to see were not in place before a takeover or nationalisation.

Alistair Darling: The proposals that I will publish next week will require primary legislation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that will inevitably take a few months, but I told the Treasury Committee that I wanted the legislation to be on the statute book before the end of the current parliamentary Session. I do not want to hold up any solution in relation to Northern Rock until all that is done. If the proposals I have outlined today bore fruit, the money lent by the Bank of England would be repaid in full; but I think we should proceed on the basis that we will get the legislation on the statute book during this Session if we can, and I hope that we will have all-party support for that.

Rob Marris: The shadow Chancellor has accused my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of dithering. Let me tell my right hon. Friend that I welcome the calm and considered way in which he has gone about his decision making, in stark contrast to the flip-flopping, contradictory, incompetent positions adopted by the Conservatives. Can he give an indication of the disruption that would be experienced by home owners with Northern Rock mortgages if Northern Rock went into administration, as was advocated by the shadow Chancellor as recently as last week?

Alistair Darling: It is for the Conservatives to justify their policies. I just do not think that it is a very good idea.

Peter Lilley: The Chancellor repeatedly reassured the House that Northern Rock has a good quality loan book. I have no doubt that most of its old loans are well secured, but is it entirely credible that a company that increased its loan book by 50 per cent. at the top of the market in the year before banks stopped lending to it, did so without hoovering up some sub-prime mortgages as well as prime mortgages? Given that bad mortgages cannot be secured against good mortgages, does the Chancellor accept that he is accepting, on behalf of the taxpayer, the risk of all the bad mortgages in that loan book?

Alistair Darling: I was reporting what the FSA said about the Northern Rock mortgage book. It has said it on a number of occasions, and I believe it to be an accurate representation of the position.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that, along with many others, I am pleased that he has not ruled out public ownership? Way back when Ted Heath was the Prime Minister, the Tories had a cunning plan: they decided to take over Rolls-Royce. It turned out to be the wise thing to do, and we supported him in the Lobby—in fact, we ran in there. Then, in 1975, the Labour Government had to intervene to save Burmah Oil. Some of us would much rather see public ownership than the handing over of large sums of money to Mr. Goody Two-Shoes Branson, because we might not get it back.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend's position does not entirely surprise me. I was in school when Rolls-Royce was nationalised in, I think, 1971. I have set out my position. A limited period of public ownership must remain on the table, but what I am proposing could, if we can get the right terms and conditions, prove a better deal in the long term.

Peter Viggers: To what extent will other banks be able to take advantage of the terms offered to Northern Rock?

Alistair Darling: As I have made clear, there are two bidders, and the board itself has also expressed an interest in the future of Northern Rock. As I have also said, the Government are happy to talk to anybody else who might express an interest.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the approach that my right hon. Friend has set out, which has both protected people's savings and jobs and prevented the contagion spreading from Northern Rock to other banks, which was a genuine risk last autumn. When my right hon. Friend comes forward with proposals for tighter supervision and regulation, will he also look at the rating agencies, which have a major role in assessing the risks posed to different investors?

Alistair Darling: Yes. The Financial Stability Forum is looking at rating agencies. I discussed a range of matters with my French, German and Italian counterparts when we met in Paris last week; one of them was what further changes might be made to credit rating agencies. I have always regarded them as an aid to decision making. When a bank or any other financial institution makes a decision as to whether to lend, it should certainly take a credit rating agency's advice into account, but it should also exercise its own judgment and not rely totally on what the credit rating agency says. There are other issues in relation to possible conflicts of interest which also need to be looked at.

Sammy Wilson: We have just come through one of the tightest comprehensive spending reviews since this Government came to office. One of the reasons for that is the current strain on public finances. Will the borrowing rules be relaxed to allow borrowing above planned borrowing for next year in order to finance this deal, or will there be a reduction in planned borrowing for infrastructure projects—and if so, which Departments does the Chancellor intend to delve into in order to finance this?

Alistair Darling: No. The additional money would need to be raised by investors in Northern Rock. As I have explained, the Government are providing a backstop guarantee. Nothing I have said today would affect the plans I set out last October.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), when did the FSA assessment of the loan book take place?

Alistair Darling: We have been carrying out assessments ever since the difficulties with Northern Rock first arose.

James Brokenshire: The Chancellor emphasised in his statement the importance of taxpayers being able to share in the upside returns. Will he confirm that that would require the Government to take a shareholding in Northern Rock, and if so will he say what his minimum requirements would be in relation to such equity participation?

Alistair Darling: It would not require it, but one of the things that we will need to discuss over the next few weeks is what mechanisms would best ensure that if the company were sold and there were an upside return, the taxpayer could benefit to reflect the fact that we are providing backstop guarantees.

Anne Main: Given that the management structure has been criticised in connection with the running of Northern Rock, what role will the Government have in the management structure to ensure that we secure the best deal for the taxpayer?

Alistair Darling: As I have said on a number of occasions, the management of a company is a matter for its shareholders—its owners. The Government have never been in a position to say to a privately run company that so-and-so should be a director or manager and so-and-so should not. But I am clear about the fact that whatever changes occur, part of the restructuring will involve ensuring that we put in place a strong management who know what they are doing.

Graham Brady: The Chancellor said that the Bank of England's lending will be repaid in full, but at what point does he propose to authorise it to publish full details of that lending?

Alistair Darling: Again, I have said on a number of occasions that I will consider that when it is appropriate to do so. What I want to avoid is providing a running commentary on Bank of England support. I look forward to hearing what the Treasury Committee has to say, but I think that some sympathy exists for that approach. If we are successfully to allow for Bank of England intervention, we need to be able to act in a way that does not immediately draw attention to a bank and cause the very difficulties that we are trying to avoid.

Michael Fabricant: Given the unique and privileged access Richard Branson enjoyed to his travelling companion, the Prime Minister, will the Chancellor tell the House precisely what discussions have taken place between them regarding the Virgin bid?

Alistair Darling: I think I am right in saying that some 50 business men and women accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to China and India. The discussions with the Virgin group, Olivant and the board started today, once the statement had been issued to the stock exchange. Of course we had to tell the board on Friday night what we were proposing, because of its obligations to the market. The discussions with the two bidders could not start until after that.

David Jones: Does the Chancellor agree with the assessment of the BBC's business editor that the arrangements that he has announced this afternoon amount to a public "subsidy" of £1 billion for Northern Rock? If not, what figure would he put upon it?

Alistair Darling: As I have explained on a number of occasions this afternoon, the discussions that will now follow from my publication of proposals will determine to what extent, at what rate and how much the Government will provide backstop finance. Once those discussions have concluded, I will be able to report to the House.

Peter Bone: Can the Chancellor confirm that under no circumstances will Northern Rock be allowed to go into administration?

Alistair Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman's question might be better directed at his own Front-Bench team.

MOD (Data Loss)

Des Browne: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to inform the House about the theft of laptop computers from Ministry of Defence vehicles and premises. The MOD has clear policies, systems and procedures in place to protect the security of information, both personal data and classified information. We have software protection through encryption and a formal information security process through which individual IT systems and the databases they contain must be accredited by the appropriate MOD authorities. Our internal investigations following this theft reveal that those procedures were not followed. That was a breach of MOD security regulations.
	As police investigations of the theft are at an active stage, I am limited in what I can say about the incident. It occurred on the night of Wednesday 9 January in Edgbaston, Birmingham. The laptop was left in a car that had been parked overnight and was unattended. That was a breach of security regulations. The stolen laptop contains personal information on about 600,000 people, the majority of whom had simply expressed an interest in joining the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines or the Royal Air Force.
	We have no reason to believe that the theft was specifically targeted against the officer, or to acquire the laptop for the data held on it, but we cannot wholly discount that. Early in the morning after the laptop was left in the unattended car, as soon as the theft was discovered, it was reported to the local police and the relevant authorities in the MOD.
	It is not clear to me why recruiting officers routinely carry with them information on such a large number of people—or, indeed, why the database retains such information at all. The information held is not the same for every individual. In some cases the record may be no more than a name, but I am advised that for about 153,000 people who progressed as far as submitting an application form to join the forces, more extensive personal data are held, including passport details, national insurance numbers, driver's licence details, family details, doctors' addresses and national health service numbers; for about 3,700 people, banking details were also included. The records largely date back to 2003, although some records may date back as far as 1997.
	Ministers were informed of the loss of the laptop on Friday 11 January, although at that point it was believed that the data were fully encrypted. That is relevant because the level of encryption used by the Ministry of Defence on its computers is stronger than that used for commercial applications, and our IT authorities judge that a significant amount of time, resources and, in particular, expertise would be needed to access such data in a readable format.
	The fact that the data were not encrypted was reported to Ministers on Monday 14 January. Subsequently, the Information Commissioner and the police authorities were informed, and as an immediate precaution all similar laptops were recalled from their users and secured. That was completed by 18 January. The theft is being investigated by the West Midlands police, assisted by the Ministry of Defence police. After consultation with the police about the impact on the investigation were the theft to become public knowledge, I decided not to make a statement to Parliament last Thursday—although I was ready to do so. Unfortunately, news of the theft of the laptop was reported in the media on Friday evening and the MOD was obliged to issue a brief statement setting out the facts of the incident, as they were being reported inaccurately.
	I discussed the need to issue a brief statement on Friday with Mr. Speaker and the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I also attempted to speak to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), without success, although I have spoken to them both today. However, steps were taken to keep the Information Commissioner fully informed and to alert the Association for Payment Clearing Services so that banks could monitor the bank accounts listed in the database to prevent unauthorised access.
	The intelligence services were also informed, and asked to assess whether the incident could lead to an increased threat to our personnel. Their view, understandably, was that the risk would depend on whether the information fell into the hands of extremists, but that there was no indication that had happened. Of course, we are keeping the matter under constant review.
	Letters have been sent to all 3,700 people whose bank details were included in the database, and are being sent to the 153,000 people who applied to join the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines or the Royal Air Force during the relevant periods. We have set up a free telephone helpline, an e-mail address and an address for correspondence for use by anyone who is concerned about the implications of the data loss and wishes to seek further information.
	As soon as the theft was reported, the Royal Navy began an internal investigation into the incident itself, which has now been completed. Steps are being taken by the Navy to prevent a recurrence, and the chain of command is considering appropriate action against the officer concerned.
	An internal investigation is also under way by the MOD's head of security into the wider security issues raised by the loss of the data. In the time available, the investigation has established that in addition to the laptop stolen on 9 January, two further laptops potentially containing similar data have been stolen. A Royal Navy laptop similar to that stolen on 9 January was stolen from a car in Manchester in October 2006, and an Army recruiting laptop, containing details of about 500 individuals, was stolen from a careers office in Edinburgh in December 2005.
	These incidents were reported at the time to the local police and to the chain of command, although neither theft was reported to Ministers. Those involved believed that the data were protected by encryption and so no steps were taken to inform those whose records were potentially at risk. That is now being done in the same manner as I have described for those affected by the most recent loss. Nor was the Information Commissioner informed, but that has now been done. There is nothing to suggest that the earlier thefts have been exploited for criminal purposes or any other purpose in the intervening period.
	As I said, our internal investigation has identified weaknesses in the application of MOD security procedures to the database, which is managed by the Army recruiting and training division on behalf of all three services.
	In the time available, it has not been possible to establish all the facts, but it is clear that the database files were unencrypted, in breach of MoD procedures, and that there were shortcomings in security training and awareness among the relevant staff. Further, although the MOD was a full participant in the Cabinet Office-led review following the loss of data by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the thefts and the failure to comply with agreed MOD procedures for the system were not highlighted by those responsible for the system during the first phase of that review.
	Accordingly, following consultation with the Information Commissioner, I have invited Sir Edmund Burton to undertake a full investigation into how these weaknesses came about, including responsibility for any breach of security and accreditation procedures, and to review the steps that we have taken to prevent any recurrence. Sir Edmund is chairman of the Information Assurance Advisory Council and supports the Cabinet Office in the implementation of the Government's information assurance strategy. He is also a former chairman of the Police Information Technology Organisation and former commandant of the Royal Military College of Science.
	Sir Edmund will work closely with those in the Cabinet Office who have been reviewing procedures across Government, following the HMRC loss of data. His report will enable us to answer the questions that still need to be answered. The Information Commissioner has confirmed in particular that the review will be wide enough to address the questions that he has raised, including why a database of this size was thought necessary for field recruitment staff. It will also enable the chain of command to identify where responsibility lies and whether anyone needs to face action as a result. Sir Edmund's full report will be made available to the Information Commissioner.
	I take this theft of personal data extremely seriously. I am also keenly aware of the risks if the data had fallen into the wrong hands, although I emphasise that there is no evidence that they have done so. As with all parts of Government, those who have dealings with the armed forces have a right to expect that their data will be properly protected. I very much regret that that has not happened. I am determined that we should identify exactly what went wrong and learn lessons. This must never happen again, and I will keep the House informed of the outcome of the various investigations to which I have referred.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and his permanent secretary for providing me with information in relation to the incident. I am afraid that it all adds up to a damning picture of MOD incompetence, mismanagement and poor practice. In many ways, it is worse than the loss of the child benefit records, because we know that the information fell into criminal hands as it was stolen by a criminal. As the Secretary of State says, it could be used for identity theft or, worse, for terrorism.
	It is clear that the MOD did not follow its own procedures for the protection of databases. Its procedure can hardly be described as robust. It is clear that the Cabinet Office review was ignored or simply not implemented. It is clear that two similar cases occurred, but Ministers were not informed. Why not? The Secretary of State does not know why his own recruiting officers routinely carry such information, so can he at least tell us how many of them carry it? He must know by now. Why are all those categories of information needed—for example, the religion of recruits, which can be very sensitive information and could prejudice several minorities in the armed forces?
	It is clear that Ministers believed that information was encrypted, but they did not know, which raises the question of whether the item was an MOD laptop—or was the information kept on the officer's personal laptop? If so, how often has that occurred? Are Ministers sure that the other two laptops that went missing have encrypted data, and what back-up is kept to enable checks to be made when things go wrong?
	Clearly, we do not know what risks will be faced by those on the database—it depends entirely on whose hands it has fallen into—but putting our troops at risk in such a way is unforgivable, because it seems as though there has been systemic failure, rather than a single act of incompetence or irresponsibility. We now know that 68 MOD laptops were stolen in 2007, 66 in 2006, 40 in 2005, and 173 in 2004. What on earth is going on? How much information on our service personnel is floating around out there? Most importantly, why has nothing been done about such incidents, when they have occurred regularly for a number of years?
	Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many of the computers that have been stolen since 1998 had a classification of "confidential" or higher? What was the security classification of the laptop stolen most recently? What is his Department's policy on classifying and storing sensitive information on MOD computers in general? More importantly, what role does he have in determining what information is classified and at what level, and who has access to that information? Will he list and publish in the Library all the departmental rules, regulations and protocols that were broken, leading to this catastrophic loss of information?
	Lately, it has been shown that the Government take a cavalier approach to the confidential details of UK citizens, but in the case that we are considering, the security aspects make things worse. There will be a damaging effect on the confidence and morale of our forces, which will do nothing to solve the crisis in retention and recruitment that we face. It is a dreadful mess that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today, and it will require total commitment to put the matter right. At this stage, even he must realise that this is no job for a part-timer.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is an extremely serious matter, and I am well aware of the implications. I see that there are Members from Northern Ireland present; I am conscious of the important implications that there were on the occasions when information was stolen in Northern Ireland from various agencies, and of the effect that that had on the morale of those serving in our armed forces there, particularly those of them who lived in Northern Ireland. As I served as a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, I am very conscious of that. That is why the MOD has such clear, strict procedures and systems in place, and they ought to be not only respected but observed meticulously. He is right to identify failure to do that as a matter of the utmost seriousness, and that is how I treat it.
	Over and above that, I have to say that the MOD has a good record on maintaining security for a wide range of sensitive information through its procedures. From the information that I have, I have no reason to believe than the issue goes any wider than the handling of the database in question, but that is serious enough. I accept that there needs to be a robust, clear explanation of why such an amount of information had to be carried. I am far from satisfied that there can be such an explanation, but I am not prepared to prejudge the conclusions of the robust investigation that I have set up.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about rules, regulations and protocols. I will consider doing as he requests, to the degree that that is consistent with our shared wider objectives relating to the security of those who serve our nation, and those who support them. In any event, I am absolutely certain that the investigation will need to look into all those rules, regulations and protocols. So far, I am satisfied that if they had been observed, the problems would not have happened on any of the three occasions. On his specific question on encryption, I thought that I made it clear that the data on none of the three laptops were encrypted.
	The hon. Gentleman asks what provision we make for the support of the people who have to do the work. We provide them with laptops that have a facility for encryption. There were about 300 of those laptops in existence. They were all brought in and secured as of 18 January, whether or not the information on them was encrypted. I shall consider the other questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, and if I believe that any of them require an answer, in the interests of clarity and in support of the investigation, I shall ensure that they are answered in another fashion.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has appointed an extremely competent official to undertake the investigation. I have worked with Sir Edmund Burton in the Information Assurance Advisory Council on a number of subjects, so I know that his presence is a big plus. I am deeply concerned, however, that the lack of reporting to which my right hon. Friend referred may constitute a breaking of the law by officials as a result of their failure to handle matters properly within the data protection legislation. While Sir Edmund conducts the investigation, will my right hon. Friend make sure that he takes every possible step to ensure that anyone in his Department who handles personal data has undertaken proper training under the Data Protection Act before being allowed to handle any more sensitive information?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that Sir Edmund Burton is well qualified to do this job. Those who know him, and his fierce reputation as an independent advocate in this area, know that he is well qualified to undertake the investigation. I have set out in short the remit for Sir Edmund's wide-ranging investigation, and I am satisfied that, as agreed with the Information Commissioner, it addresses all the necessary questions and gives Sir Edmund the flexibility that he needs. If it transpires that there has been a breach of the law—and whatever law is breached—those who are responsible will have to live with the consequences, because they are accountable.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for calling me on Friday to brief me about this matter. Everyone would accept that the primary responsibility lies with the individual whose foolishness led to the laptop being stolen. However, the House is less ready to accept the Secretary of State's assertion that the MOD has robust policies, systems and procedures to stop that sort of thing happening. Sir Edmund Burton may reflect on policies and procedures, but the Secretary of State will accept that the systems and controls to stop that sort of thing happening simply have not worked—if, indeed, they exist. As we have heard, this is not the first case—there have been others in recent years—so we need a fundamental rethink about the way in which data are protected in the Department.
	In the light of the well-known shortages in manpower in all three of the armed forces, I suppose it is reassuring that 600,000 people wish to volunteer and join the forces. I hope that the confidence of would-be recruits is not shaken by this regrettable incident. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the comments this morning of the Information Commissioner, who said that we have further to go to understand
	"the potency of personal information in a database world"?
	The Secretary of State told us candidly—and I sympathise with his predicament—that he did not know why that information was kept in one place and put on to a laptop. That is the sort of thing that we have to sort out and understand. The public would be shocked to think that their records were stored in such a way, without knowing how long they were stored and who had access to them. Does he accept that we have to treat the protection of personal information as seriously as we treat official secrets, military intelligence, and, indeed, large sums of money? Is it not clear that a change of culture across Whitehall is needed, and that, as the Justice Committee has suggested, there should be a new crime of recklessly divulging data, and a new power for the Information Commissioner to perform spot checks on data controllers?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman referred to the conversation that I had with him on Friday night. In case it is not clear, I should say that I had intended, and was ready, to make this statement on Thursday. After discussions with the police, and for reasons to do with the stage of the police investigation, I made the judgment that it would be better to wait. Unfortunately, however, the media broke the story on Friday. I deeply regret that I had to put a statement into the public domain without speaking in the House about it first, but the story running in the media was wrong, and I could not leave it wrong over the weekend. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Woodspring and Mr. Speaker for their understanding when I contacted them on Friday night to explain what I was doing. I trust that the House will accept that my judgment was right.
	The fundamental point made by the hon. Member for North Devon is right—but I did not say that the MOD had "robust" policies, systems and procedures; I said that we had clear policies, systems and procedures. The hon. Gentleman pointed to a draft of the statement— [Interruption.] I make this point advisedly. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to a draft of my statement—to be checked against delivery—that we gave him. When I was given the final draft of the statement, immediately after Defence questions, I changed that word.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: the robustness of the policies and procedures depends on their being observed. The failure to observe those procedures will be the focus of the investigation that I have set up. That failure caused the need for my statement today, and the potential release of the information into the hands of people who should not have it. I deeply regret that, and I am determined to find out why it happened. I cannot give the House an explanation why information relating to 600,000 people needed to be on a laptop; frankly, and without wishing to prejudge the investigation, I do not believe that it needed to be.
	I listened with care to the Information Commissioner on the radio this morning. I listened to the questions that he posed; all those questions need to be answered. I have deliberately framed the remit of the investigation so that they will be answered. I have the comfort of knowing that my senior officials spoke to him about the issue, and I understand that he is of the same view. The hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that I am taking the matter appropriately seriously. If there are consequences for individuals, those individuals will have to live with them, whatever they may be. I am not in a position to deliver such a judgment; that is for the chain of command.

Gordon Prentice: Has anyone been disciplined for negligence as a result of losing a laptop containing sensitive personal information since 1997?

Des Browne: Not to my knowledge.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House what steps he has taken to prevent a future blunder of this kind. He will know about the loss of Child Support Agency data at the back end of last year. Will he say what steps he and other Ministers personally took then to ensure that no blunder of the kind that has just occurred was perpetrated by his Department?

Des Browne: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman would expect, I made it clear to the permanent under-secretary that we should co-operate fully and comprehensively with the review that was being set up at the centre of Government. I said that we were to ensure that what might well have been at the heart of the Revenue and Customs problem—a culture had appeared to grow up that, at least in some regard, did not treat such information as being as valuable as it is, and people had not been observing the systems and procedures in place—was not the case in our Department.
	As I said in my statement, the interim report that I received on the part of the review that my permanent under-secretary carried out on this particular issue did not identify the problem or the circumstances that I believe, and that I think the investigation will reveal, led to what we have to deal with today. Had I known, I would have taken other steps, but it was not reported to me.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has been let down by his Department. This has turned out to be not what we thought it was—the isolated action of a foolish individual—but a section of his Department failing to take elementary precautions about data protection. When he was asked about its systems by the Cabinet Secretary's review, he was presumably given an assurance, notwithstanding the fact that there had been previous incidents, that those systems were in order. If I were him, I would be very cross about this, and want to do something about it.

Des Browne: I can hardly say that I am delighted about it, but there does not seem to be any point in getting angry in this job. I am often asked if I am angry or frustrated about things, but it seems to me that those are wasted emotions. My job is to get on and ensure that this never happens again—to find out exactly what happened, and to ensure that those who need to be properly trained are properly trained, and that those who were responsible for ensuring that those systems and procedures were properly applied are made properly accountable for their failure to do so.

Peter Lilley: Given the series of incredible and repeated scandals involving child benefit discs, Department for Work and Pensions data in binbags, and military laptops, has not the time come for an analysis of the problems of data protection that is more extensive, comprehensive and independent than anything that the Government have initiated so far? Should not that also cover information that they deliberately make public, which, in the case of the Land Registry information, has resulted in tens of millions of pounds of people's freehold property being robbed? And should not the lessons of all this be learned before we proceed with identity cards?

Des Browne: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me into discussing the Land Registry, an area where, because of my professional experience, I may have some limited but now dated expertise—but that is not my responsibility. I accept his point. It is very important that the Government and the Government's employees take responsibility for complying with the data protection standards for which we have legislated in this House, but it is equally important that the independent Information Commissioner's Office can properly keep accountable all those who hold information, including the Government. That independent regulation is the right construction, and we have to ensure that it is robust enough. However, at the heart of this is the point, which has already been made, that there needs to be a cultural understanding that such data and information, particularly when it relates to individuals, is as valuable as any other property that the Government or any other institution might have, and it is obvious that that culture is not there across substantial parts of the public sector.

Linda Gilroy: The Secretary of State said that he would not prejudge the very thorough investigation that he has put in hand. However, does he understand the incomprehension and fury felt by people in defence communities such as Plymouth, who think that common sense, rather than rocket science, should have stopped this sort of thing happening? Can he give the House a greater sense of how the cultural change to which he referred can be put in hand before we receive the report—and when we will receive it?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with justifiable passion for those whom she represents—some of whom, I have no doubt, will be receiving letters from us in the near future, and will have a degree of concern. We will endeavour, by our response to those who get in touch with us, to support them through this. It will be a vulnerable time for them; I accept that. I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend exactly when the report will be available, because, with respect, Sir Edmund has not yet started on his work, but as soon as I am in a position to give the House some indication of when the work will be completed and how I will keep the House informed, I will tell it specifically what I plan to do. I also intend to have further conversations with the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), in their capacity as Chairs of the Defence Committee and the Public Administration Committee respectively, to ensure that they are kept fully informed. I am sure that both their Committees will be interested in inquiring further not only into the circumstances of this loss of data but into what we do.
	I cannot make it any plainer than that. I am taking this matter with the utmost seriousness, and I intend to get to the bottom of what happened. If there is a reason, even if it is not a justification, for why that amount of information was being carried on a laptop, I will find out what it was. I intend to take the steps necessary to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again in the MOD.

William McCrea: Four Departments have now been responsible for losing data. Does the Secretary of State understand the serious damage done with regard to the community's view of the Government's competence in the protection of public records? Surely every instance of such loss reinforces the argument against ID cards.
	The Secretary of State mentioned that he was sensitive to the concerns of Northern Ireland. I therefore wonder why my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of my party, was not informed about this matter by the Secretary of State. Did any of the details contained in the stolen laptops refer to Army service recruits in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State knows that there is an increased threat to security forces personnel in Northern Ireland, so it would be important to inform them if any of their names were on that laptop.

Des Browne: I am very aware of the issues the hon. Gentleman raises, and I cannot make it any clearer how seriously I take this matter. He knows how seriously I take such issues, from the time that I served as a Minister in Northern Ireland, when I dealt with him, his party colleagues and others in relation to similar matters. I am well aware of the potential security implications.
	It is clear that the protection of data is relevant to the identity cards scheme, but as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, the scheme is underpinned by biometric data that will protect people's identities from being taken and/or used. That is the fundamental problem with loss of data, although there is a specific personal security problem in relation to the data in this case, which I understand. I do not think that the read-across that people constantly suggest with ID cards is robust.
	I understand how important the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are and I give him my word that I will do everything to ensure that they are taken seriously. As far as those who may be living and/or serving in Northern Ireland are concerned, I am not in a position to answer his question at this stage, but I am certain that some of the people concerned must be in Northern Ireland, and if they are exposed to any degree of risk, they will receive a letter from us, just as others involved will.

Kevan Jones: Most hon. and right hon. Members find it mind-boggling that 600,000 names were on a laptop in the back of a car in Birmingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) raised the point that we are not looking at the actions of just one individual, but a systemic failure in procedures. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the lowly naval recruitment officer concerned will not be made a scapegoat for this mistake, and that those further up who are responsible for the systems in question will take responsibility for this incident as well?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes some good points. Wherever responsibility, or any part of it, falls, that is where responsibility should be taken. Clearly, the person responsible for the immediate security of the laptop was in breach of regulations in leaving it where he did. I accept that he is not wholly responsible for the circumstances, but whatever the Navy chooses to do to him through its disciplinary procedures will be a matter for its chain of command, and the same applies to everyone else involved. I have no intention of protecting anyone from the consequences of the decisions that they have taken, if they were in breach of regulations.

Angus Robertson: It is completely unacceptable for the Secretary of State to inform only some parties in the House about major events and to overlook others, especially parties of Government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. He has been able to give a breakdown of some of the data, so will he tell the House how many of the people in question are domiciled in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? What notice was given about the data loss, and when, to the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Des Browne: This is the United Kingdom and we are the Government of the United Kingdom. It may well have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman during his obsession of the past few months, but our writ runs across the whole United Kingdom. We are perfectly capable of communicating with the citizens of the United Kingdom, whatever part of the United Kingdom they are in, via Royal Mail and other methods.  [ Interruption. ] Let me just deal with that issue; I apologise for not doing so earlier.
	The story was running on Friday night. I had to get this statement out, because I could not let the story run dishonestly, as it were—in terms of the facts—for very long. I set out to speak to certain people, and had then to get the statement out. I accept that I did not speak to representatives of every party in this House. I regret that I was not able to, but I had to correct the misinformation that was running in the public domain.
	Having used the Front-Bench spokespersons and Mr. Speaker as a test of the mood of the House on the subject, I took the decision and took responsibility for that. Thereafter, I determined that I would not put any other information anywhere else until I was able to come to the House to give a statement. That is the decision I took. I suspect that that will not cause offence to the people of Scotland, but the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) can rest assured that if I think that any issue requires the engagement of the devolved Administrations, including the minority Administration in Scotland, they will be told. At the moment, my Department and the UK Government are perfectly capable of dealing with the matter.

Gisela Stuart: If the press reports are right, the theft occurred at institutions where the MOD works together with the NHS, which takes us to a wider issue that does not concern only the systematic protection of MOD data. When the MOD has to work with other institutions, such as the NHS, the Secretary of State ought to look carefully at the sheer extent of access to the databases with which they work and the systemic structures when one Department has access to another's large database. Will he take that as part of the review's remit?

Des Browne: The information that I have—I have not physically and personally checked the database—is that this is our stand-alone database. I have no information to suggest that it is in any way connected with the database of any other organisation. I am quite surprised that my hon. Friend raises that issue. If it arises from the physical proximity of the work, then to be candid with my hon. Friend I am saying the minimum possible in the public domain about the circumstances of the theft. The ongoing police investigation is at a critical point and I do not want to put any information into the public domain that might interfere with or degrade it.

James Brokenshire: The Secretary of State's statement paints a picture of blatant disregard and breach of not only MOD procedures but Data Protection Act principles, too. That is most notable in the size of the database that has been created. Obviously, that is of concern to not only the Secretary of State but the Information Commissioner. The Secretary of State said that other laptops had been secured. What analysis of those laptops has been undertaken to see whether they, too, contain unencrypted databases of such a size and nature? Are any other officers or personnel subject to disciplinary proceedings as a consequence of such actions?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question, to which the good answer is that securing the laptops was the principal objective. I am not in a position today—although I trust that Sir Edmund's investigation will reveal the detail—to say how many of the approximately 300 laptops that we have secured had such unencrypted data on them. I am sure that some did and, to the extent that they did, that is a breach of regulations. It is for the chain of command to investigate that and determine whether the existence of those laptops in that state supports any disciplinary action. However, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not for me as Secretary of State to tell disciplined organisations, which have their own structure and, indeed, law how to conduct their affairs. They have procedures for conducting them and I am confident that they will.

Alistair Carmichael: May I express a small measure of sympathy for the Secretary of State? He is in an embarrassing position today as a result of a culture among public servants that frankly lacks the proper respect for our personal information. With that in mind, will the review consider not only why the information was held on a database but why it was obtained in the first place? Will the Department operate in future on a presumption that the information obtained should be the minimum amount, held for the shortest possible time?

Des Browne: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sympathy but I do not seek it, certainly not for some of the more difficult things that I have had to do in my job. It is my job to get on with the matter and resolve the problems robustly, if possible.
	The information gathered should be considered carefully and the necessity for holding each item should be tested. I understand why, at the point of recruitment, it is appropriate to gather specific and detailed information about recruits for transfer to the unit where they are posted or the relevant training organisation. However, after recruitment, the reason for the recruitment authority's keeping the information once it has been transferred to those who are responsible for the individuals defeats me. The question needs to be asked—and it needs to be answered compellingly for me to accept the answer.

Ben Wallace: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that no officer or individual has been disciplined for previous losses, and given that it is and always has been an offence under section 8 of the Official Secrets Act to fail to take care to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of similar information, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, should the officers concerned be found to be in breach of the Act, they will be charged with an offence? Only then will the House believe that the Department is taking data protection seriously.

Des Browne: That is a false test for my Department. There is a constitutional principle in this country that decisions about whether people are prosecuted for criminal offences are made independently of politicians. I would go to some length to honour that. I am not, therefore, prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. However, I am prepared to give an undertaking that, so far as it is in my power to do so, the matter will be exhaustively investigated. If reports have to go to another authority to determine whether a prosecution is needed beyond the actions that the chain of command of a particular service may take, that will be done. However, I cannot promise that anybody will be prosecuted—no Executive Minister should ever do that.

Mark Pritchard: Of the 347 laptop computers lost or stolen from the Ministry of Defence in the past three years, how many have been recovered? If the Secretary of State does not have that figure at his fingertips, will he write to me and place a copy of his reply in the Library of the House?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman properly predicts that I do not have that information—to be honest, I do not know whether it exists. However, I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to find it. If that is in the bounds of reasonable expense, I will write to him and make the letter available to all hon. Members.

John Hemming: Had the database been on paper, we would be considering approximately 1 million sheets of paper weighing about 5 tonnes—not so easy to steal. Large databases are easy to copy and they come with large risks. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government need to review seriously the holding of and access to large databases?

Des Browne: I accept that, and as I far as I understand it, that is exactly the review that the Cabinet Office is conducting. Hon. Members have asked today whether that review needs a more robust, independent element to it. That is a matter that I shall consider.

Points of Order

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that it was promised that Command Papers 3710 and 3711, which were supposed to inform today's Second Reading debate, would be available to hon. Members last Thursday, but that they were not available until 11.45 am today, so hon. Members now cannot make properly informed contributions to the debate. What action can you take to correct this situation? Would it be right to delay the vote on Second Reading, for instance, so that we can have an informed debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Government to ensure that the documents necessary to inform the debates on the European Union (Amendment) Bill are available to all hon. Members. I was not aware of the precise timing in the Vote Office, but at least the papers are available to all hon. Members now.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened to your ruling, but the situation is more serious than that, because protocol No. 9 of the existing treaties, under the heading "On the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union", requires documents to be provided to member states in good time for deliberation on those documents. That has not been done, so the Government are in breach of the existing treaties, not just the future treaty. Would you therefore reprimand the Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through Mr. Speaker, look favourably on further amendments to the treaty, if we get that far, to strengthen the role of national Parliaments further and require national Governments to abide by undertakings that they have freely entered into?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not responsible for the instructions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. As far as the Chair is concerned, the Vote Office has copies of all papers published by the Government relating to the Lisbon treaty and previous treaties. It also has available copies of official EU publications, including a consolidated text in English of EU treaties prior to Lisbon. I think that we now have sufficient papers before us to deal with the debate. I suggest that the sensible thing to do is move on to that debate, if that is the feeling of the House.

John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be kind enough to refresh your memory of the answer that I received from Mr. Speaker on a similar occasion, when we failed to have enough copies of the important White Paper on transport. He took the view that that was not acceptable for the House. It really is not acceptable to have material that we cannot physically read between the time it arrives and the time we have the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is simply reinforcing the point that the House should clearly have available to it all the papers necessary for the appropriate debate in the right amount of time. The House is agreed on that, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker would agree, too.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill

[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08, on  Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty (House of Commons Paper No. 120-I).]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has decided not to select the reasoned amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) and other hon. Members.
	 Order for Second Reading read.

David Miliband: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
	The Bill will give effect in United Kingdom law to changes agreed last October at the European Council in Lisbon to the treaties establishing the European Communities and the European Union. The Government are convinced that Britain's membership and full engagement with the European Union is good for Britain and good for Europe; and we believe that the treaty is good for Britain and good for Europe, too.
	The treaty is the fifth such treaty since the late Edward Heath negotiated the UK's entry to the EU in 1973. Lady Thatcher's Single European Act of 1986 set out the blueprint to complete the single market, provided for co-operation in foreign policy and created the concept of the convergence of economic and monetary policies. John Major's treaty of Maastricht in 1992 created economic and monetary union, the common foreign and security policy, and co-operation on justice and home affairs. Tony Blair's 1997 treaty of Amsterdam streamlined decision making and added provisions on social policy and employment, while the treaty of Nice in 2001 adjusted the EU's institutions to pave the way for enlargement. As I will describe, the treaty will improve the way in which the EU works. It will adapt the EU's institutions to a Union of 27, and ensure that the voice of Europe's nations is heard more loudly in foreign policy. It brings national Parliaments into day-to-day decision making to strengthen subsidiarity and focuses the EU on the big external challenges from climate change to migration.

John Redwood: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: Just let me set out my argument.
	This treaty is unique, however, in one regard. It marks the end of a process of institutional reform. That process has gone on too long and taken too much energy, but, if this treaty is ratified around Europe, it will be well and truly over— [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members ask me to prove it. If they will wait one second while I finish this paragraph, I will do so. As the preamble of the treaty says, its purpose is to complete—to finish and to stop—the institutional reform process started by the Amsterdam and Nice treaties. The European Council concluded in December that the amending treaty
	"provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework. We expect no change in the foreseeable future".
	Richard Lambert of the CBI said on 22 November that
	"the tide of Euro federalism has turned decisively".
	 [ Laughter. ] Opposition Members can mock the director general of the CBI if they wish; we take his views seriously.

John Redwood: Why will the Secretary of State not give us a referendum, given that his party promised one and that all the powers that we worried would be transferred under the constitution are now being needlessly and recklessly given away in this document?

David Miliband: For the same reason that the right hon. Gentleman voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1992—namely, that we are a parliamentary democracy and this is an amending treaty.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Foreign Secretary might find himself alone in holding that point of view. May I ask him a simple question? He cited the preamble as though it had the effect of the treaty. Is it not true, however, that in all European legislation a preamble is clearly understood not to have legal status?

David Miliband: There is a political commitment from every single leader of the European Union that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no more institutional change. That is a widespread view.

Peter Lilley: Will the Foreign Secretary now cut to the chase and spell out the specific transfers of power in the original constitution that, in the Government's opinion, justified a referendum, but which are not in this treaty—thus, in the Government's view, nullifying their promise to hold a referendum? Will he spell out those specific powers?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman will get details of specific powers and of how this is a different treaty in structure, in content and in consequence. It has more similarity to the Maastricht treaty and other treaties.

Frank Field: A number of Committees of this House have reported that there is no substantial difference between what was the constitution and is now the treaty. Apart from those other Governments who do not want to face their electorates to test their views, what bodies of equivalent standing do our Government have on their side saying that this is a treaty and not a constitution?

David Miliband: I take my right hon. Friend's position on this matter very seriously. If he looks at the minutes of the meetings of the Committees that he refers to, he will see that they have voted decisively on many occasions against having a referendum. The Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee have both voted against a referendum. In respect of my right hon. Friend's question about other authorities, I am happy to cite independent legal authorities, including the Dutch Council of State, and independent investigations from other countries, some of which are governmental, and some of which are not. The issue at hand here is whether this treaty constitutes fundamental constitutional change, and my case to the House tonight is that it does not.

Gisela Stuart: The specialist Committees that reported and did not mention whether there should be a referendum did not do so because it was not within their remit. On a more specific point, the Foreign Secretary has said on a number of occasions that this treaty will bring an end to institutional changes. Does he really mean that the new treaty, if accepted, would no longer require national Parliaments to be involved in such procedures because it allows self-amending mechanisms, which would mean that we would no longer have a say on certain things?

David Miliband: Not at all. As my hon. Friend knows, the increased role of national parliaments is an important feature of this treaty.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: Let me make some progress.
	Left of centre parties in all 27 European countries support the treaty; liberal parties—as well as social democratic and socialist parties—in all 27 countries support the treaty; and conservative parties in 26 countries support the treaty. Only in Britain do we have a major party opposed to the contents of the treaty. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has pledged its support for the provisions in the treaty— [Interruption.] Let me make the point.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: No, I am going to make the point. The NSPCC pledged its support, as have One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam— [Interruption.] I will give way in due course— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters and I am sure that the House will bear that in mind as we continue this debate. The Secretary of State is clearly not giving way for the time being and he will no doubt indicate clearly when he is prepared to do so.

David Miliband: As I was saying, One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam have announced their support for the measures on development co-operation. Voluntary sector leaders have said that the treaty strengthens the voice of civil society.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I will give way to right hon. and hon. Members after I have made my point.
	Environmental organisations support the treaty provisions on sustainable development and even the commission of bishops supports the treaty. This is a coalition not of ideology, but integrity; not of federalism in Europe, but of realism about the modern world. Only in Britain does one of the two main parties place itself outside that coalition and actually oppose the contents of the treaty root and branch.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I am happy to give way to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

John Gummer: Would not the Government be in a much stronger position to defend a treaty to which many of us find no objection in general if they had not promised a referendum, yet are now denying it? Is not the real issue that people in Britain who favour the treaty believe that the Government have gone back on their word?

David Miliband: The real issue is the content of the treaty; and in its structure and consequence, as well as its content, it is different from the constitution and does not meet the bar of whether it constitutes fundamental constitutional change.

Ian Paisley: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to answer one simple question? He has listed many people who are for this treaty, but the Governments of Scotland and of Northern Ireland are not for it. Surely they should be listened to in this united Parliament.

David Miliband: Every right hon. and hon. Member should be listened to on this issue in this Parliament. This is the United Kingdom Parliament and it is the United Kingdom that negotiates on treaty matters.

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out that voluntary organisations support the treaty. Is it not the case that with this treaty comes a recognition for the first time of the relationship between European institutions and civil society across Europe, in that article 8 provides new opportunities to build on the work we are doing to empower civil society in this country, enabling us to work towards the European compact for civil society?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which speaks directly to the fact that this treaty brings practical benefits.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I happily give way to a former Minister for Europe.

Doug Henderson: When all the politics is cut aside, is it not clear that the main difference between the constitution and this treaty, which has been recognised by other EU countries, is that the constitution brought together previous treaties and bound them as a document, which would then have been amendable as the constitution of the EU; whereas this treaty is in exactly the same legal position as previous treaties such as Amsterdam and Nice and has much less of a radical impact than the Maastricht treaty?

David Miliband: When I say, as my hon. Friend does, that the treaty is different in structure, it is because the proposed constitution was legally unprecedented: it abolished all previous European treaties and refounded the European Union. This treaty, like the four previous treaties, amends the original founding document of the European Union.

Philip Davies: If this treaty is such a marvellous thing for this country, why will the Secretary of State not have the courage of his convictions and put it to the British people? Does he think that the British public are too thick to understand its benefits, or is he just scared of being rumbled, because they know that it gives away so many powers to the European Union?

David Miliband: We have heard the authentic voice of the modern Tory party. The hon. Gentleman is a leading member of the Better Off Out campaign, and we know what it wants: to get us out of the European Union totally.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I shall give way for the last time to the former Foreign Secretary.

Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has said now on two occasions that the only basis for a referendum would be that fundamental constitutional changes were proposed. He must be aware that when the former Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a referendum in 2004, at no time did he cite as the basis for his decision the fact that what was before us was a constitution. He said to the House that when Parliament had discussed the matter, we should let the people have their say. If the Foreign Secretary is resting on the opinion of the bench of bishops and the NSPCC, is it not also appropriate that the people have their say?

David Miliband: The former Prime Minister addressed the matter directly in his statement from the Dispatch Box, when he said that the constitution did not constitute fundamental constitutional change. A bit like the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he had the idea that we should "clear the air". No doubt historians will debate the wisdom or otherwise of that for many years to come. There was absolute clarity, however, that the constitution did not constitute fundamental constitutional change.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I must make progress, but I shall try to give way to right hon. and hon. Members in due course.
	The wide coalition behind the treaty is relevant. The Leader of the Opposition said in 2007 that he wanted to
	"create a flexible Europe by building alliances with those who share our interests and our ideas".
	Where does that stand now? We know the truth. His crusade against the treaty is a shared project with Sinn Fein, assorted fringe communist parties and the Dutch Animals party. That is the extent of the shared interests.
	The Leader of the Opposition is not leading his party to government, or building an alliance of shared interests. He is leading it into the wilderness, to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I will make some progress.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the contempt with which the Foreign Secretary is treating the House with this appalling speech, will you adjourn the House so that he can go and write a proper one?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will understand if I say that that is a matter for debate rather than a matter for the Chair.

David Miliband: Let me go through the clauses of the Bill.  [Interruption.] I will be happy to give way later.
	Clause 1 defines the Lisbon treaty. Clause 2 amends the European Communities Act 1972, which gives EU treaties legal effect in the UK, to include the Lisbon treaty. We gave effect to the four previous treaties governing our role in the European Union in exactly the same way.

William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?

David Miliband: No, I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
	Clause 3 clarifies the terminology relating to the European Union. Clause 4 provides for consequential changes in the European Parliament. Clause 5 provides that no future amending treaty is to be ratified by the United Kingdom unless it has been approved by an Act of Parliament. Clause 6, for the first time, gives Parliament the power to veto amending measures, covering any move to qualified majority voting, co-decision and the so-called simplified revision procedure—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and which I want to cover. The so-called passerelles are provisions in the treaty allowing for amendment without an intergovernmental conference. They have been around since Margaret Thatcher's Single European Act. It is not just the case that changes can come into force only if they are agreed by all Governments; this is the first time that Parliament has been given power to veto their use.
	Clause 7 is the short title of the Bill. Clause 8 provides for the commencement of its provisions. That creates, as requested by both Select Committees, a parliamentary hook for an amendment calling for a referendum on the treaty and a debate and vote in the House on the issue.
	Today's debate provides an opportunity to discuss the principles and content of the Bill and the treaty, and it is to the details of the treaty that I now wish to turn.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Stone, and I am happy to do so.

William Cash: The Foreign Secretary says that there is no fundamental change. How can he claim that there is no fundamental change in the structure of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union by virtue of the Bill and this treaty? It is absolutely clear from the Government's own statement that there is a merger of the existing treaties, the abolition of the European Community in favour of a European Union and a legal personality, and that the structure of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is absolutely and totally changed by virtue of these proposals.

David Miliband: There is simply no credibility in the suggestion that with the continued separate treaty for foreign policy, this treaty abolishes the United Kingdom's ability to be a sovereign country. I can tell the hon. Gentleman—and I will go through this in detail—that in structure, in content and in consequence, it is certainly not a bigger change in the relationship between Britain and the European Union than was Maastricht or the Single European Act.

Gordon Banks: A moment ago, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the changes to qualified majority voting in the treaty. Will he tell us whether he considers those changes to be in the United Kingdom's national interests?

David Miliband: I certainly will. In respect of development, energy liberalisation and development aid, this is precisely the sort of change that we need in order to get things done in the European Union. It is in the British national interest, rather than contrary to it.

John Maples: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: I will give way to the former foreign affairs spokesman.

John Maples: The question in which people are interested is whether there should be a referendum or not. The only excuse that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have for not holding a referendum is that this treaty is in some way fundamentally different from the constitution. However, a report by the European Scrutiny Committee stated
	"The Reform Treaty"
	—this one—
	"will introduce into the existing Treaties all the 'innovations'"
	that were in the constitution apart from the symbols, referring, I think, to the flag and the "Ode to Joy". Was the Scrutiny Committee wrong? If it was not, the Foreign Secretary is not being straight with the House.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a very partial part— [Interruption.] The European Scrutiny Committee did not say that it was only in the matter of symbols that there were differences. In terms of structure, content and consequences, this is a fundamentally different treaty, and it certainly does not meet the bar of fundamental constitutional reform.

Bob Spink: May I give the Foreign Secretary a quotation that he may recognise? It comes from the architect of the European Union constitution, Giscard d'Estaing, who said:
	"I have compared the new Treaty with the Constitution on the 'nine essential points'. To tell the truth, to my great satisfaction, these nine points reappear word for word in the new Treaty. Not a comma has changed."
	Was d'Estaing telling lies when he said that?

David Miliband: Listen to what Giscard d'Estaing—the same former president—said five days ago. He said:
	"The request for a referendum is not justified, as this is a different text"
	from the constitutional treaty. There is no way in which to pray in aid Mr. Giscard d'Estaing.

Kenneth Clarke: Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that he could save himself all this theological nonsense of trying to claim that the present treaty is different from the former treaty if he would accept that his own genuine view is that the last Prime Minister made a mistake when he came along and told us all, to our complete surprise, that he was going to have a referendum on the treaty that he then had? The then Prime Minister did not really believe in referendums on such subjects, and I am sure that the present Foreign Secretary was as amazed as I was to hear the Prime Minister's statement. If he would only admit that the referendum should never have been offered in the first place, he could save himself this arcane and ridiculous argument, rather than trying to demonstrate that this is a different document, in fundamental terms, from the one that we had before.

David Miliband: As one who was a junior Minister toiling in the Department for Education and Skills at the time, I can certainly confirm that it came as a surprise and a shock to me to learn of the new decision. I certainly agree that there was no way on the basis of its constitutional significance that it merited the decision that was taken.

David Blunkett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the European Scrutiny Committee report and the original words that Giscard d'Estaing issued did not—as the current Committee has recently reflected—take into account the fact that the opt-outs and protocols have made a significant difference to the decisions that we in this House take on the treaty compared with the 26 other European countries who are seeking to ratify it?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a different treaty for Britain than it is for other countries in Europe. That is why Giscard d'Estaing talks about the "special status" of the treaty in the United Kingdom.
	I shall now make some progress, but I may well give way later, depending on how far we get.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

David Miliband: I shall certainly try to bring in the right hon. Gentleman later.
	The Government want Europe's nations to set a clearer and more consistent course for the European Union. The treaty will bring in a full-time president of the European Council, ending the six-monthly merry-go-round of the changing presidency, which has too often meant a lack of consistency and follow-through. The president will be appointed by Heads of Government and be accountable to Heads of Government, and it will continue to be the EU's national leaders, not the president of the Council, who takes final decisions.
	The Government believe that security and prosperity within the EU demand more purposeful action beyond Europe's borders. The answer is not to undermine the foreign policy prerogatives of nation states—and, as the Foreign Affairs Committee states very clearly, that is not the consequence of the Lisbon treaty. The treaty ensures that the decisions of the 27 EU nations, when we all agree, will be carried forward in a more coherent way by the appointment by member states of a single Commissioner, rather than two as at present.

David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

David Miliband: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I reach the end of this section of my speech.
	The Government want to ensure that as the EU enlarges the treaty reduces what has become a large and unwieldy Commission, reducing the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18.
	The Government believe that national Parliaments should play a bigger role in European affairs, as I described earlier. In addition to the measures I described, for the first time national Parliaments will have a direct say in the EU's law-making procedures on a day-to-day basis. National Parliaments will now be able to challenge a proposal if, for example, they decide it affects an area they believe is a matter not for the EU but for individual member countries.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I shall give way to Members when I reach the end of this section, and I shall start with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	The Government also believe that Europe needs to reform its voting system to take account of enlargement. The treaty finally does that. In future, population size as well as the number of states is important to decision making. That will raise the proportion of votes in UK hands from 8 to 12 per cent.
	Furthermore—and to pick up on an earlier point—let me set out the facts on qualified majority voting. Sixteen of the changes either do not apply to the UK or apply only if we agree, because they concern economic and monetary union, of which we are not a part, or justice and home affairs, on which we have the ability to opt in or out.  [Interruption.] For as long as necessary: as I shall explain in detail, we will have the right to choose on all justice and home affairs measures.
	Fourteen of the QMV changes are purely procedural; for example, they address how we appoint members of the EU's Economic and Social Committee, or provisions relating to the effect of the past division of Germany. In 20 areas, the changes offer faster decision making where that is in the UK's interests, such as on energy liberalisation, where the chairmen of Centrica and the National Grid Company have said that the Lisbon treaty
	"will be a way of circumventing cases of protectionism";
	on aid to disaster zones, where representatives of 350 development non-government organisations have said that the treaty can
	"deliver a stronger poverty focus and greater coherence in"
	the EU's
	"development and humanitarian work";
	and on strengthening the EU's research and innovation capability, which will be of benefit to UK universities and research institutes.
	I am now happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Wells.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing so. Since he has dismissed the European Scrutiny Committee conclusion that the current treaty is substantially the same as the constitution, does he also dismiss the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee published this morning
	"that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied"?
	Was that Labour-dominated Committee also wrong?

David Miliband: The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee is present, so he will be able to confirm that it said that the treaty was not substantially different for those countries without the protocols and opt-outs that we have secured. The quotation that the right hon. Member for Wells has given is a totally partial representation of what that Committee concluded.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I have addressed one point. The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions, so I want to address the second one and then we will be able to address others.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee report confirms that the Government's red line of foreign policy being an intergovernmental area remains intact.

Ken Purchase: Agreed by him too.

David Miliband: That was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman, who voted against a referendum on Maastricht as deputy Chief Whip at the time. The FAC says that the role of the high representative for the common foreign and security policy is a valuable contribution and it dismisses the allegations that we will lose our rights at the Security Council as nonsense. I say to all hon. Members that they should read what the FAC has said, rather than what it is alleged to have said.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that those who demand a referendum as a cover for their wish to withdraw from the European Union never seem to mention the provisions in this treaty, which include provision for competences to be transferred back to member states from the EU and the introduction of a procedure for managing the withdrawal of a member state from the EU? Those are just the sorts of things one would expect those against UK membership of the EU to support.

David Miliband: In keeping with his reputation in this House, my hon. Friend has read the details of the treaty and he understands the fact that it indeed does the things that he says it does.

Andrew Robathan: rose—

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has been trying to get in for some time, so it is only fair that I give way.

Andrew Robathan: The Foreign Secretary is doing a good job of saying that black is white in a rant of propaganda that would be worthy of Goebbels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even though these are extremely serious matters, we should temper our language when we make contributions to the debate. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw that particular remark.

Andrew Robathan: I will certainly withdraw it, although I must say that my mother lost her first husband in the second world war.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to both sides of the House that hon. Members should treat each other with some courtesy and the House with respect? If one withdraws a remark, there is no need to qualify it after that.

Andrew Robathan: My point was that the Foreign Secretary and all the hon. Members sitting behind him must go back to their constituents at election time. They told their constituents at the previous election that they could have a vote on the constitution. This is the same as the constitution—black is not white—so how will they face their constituents? What will they say next time round?

David Miliband: It is through the elections to this House that people will be able to decide their view on the different stances that different hon. Members take. One thing that we should be able to agree upon above all others is that if the European Union has contributed to anything over the past 50 or 60 years it is to the prevention of war in Europe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe, on reflection, that the language and the imagery that he has conjured up are not worthy of him.

Angela Smith: History, if nothing else, teaches us of the importance of a united Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position outlined by many hon. Members today betrays an isolationist position that risks damaging this country both politically and economically?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the priorities that should confront us. Those are not about institutional change but are about dealing with the major issues that the European Union should be addressing—

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

David Miliband: I shall make some progress and then, as always, I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course. His relationship with me goes back to his time as advocate for the milk industry, and I hope that he will be patient.
	I want to deal with the four red lines that the Government insisted were at the heart of our negotiating approach. In respect of tax and social security, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who speaks for the Conservative party, admits that we have strengthened our veto power but now he says that it was never under threat.
	The right hon. Gentleman alleges an extension of the role of the European Court of Justice on social legislation via the charter of rights, yet the treaty records existing rights rather than creating new ones. A new legally binding protocol guarantees that nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. Let us not forget that the Conservative party wants to rip apart Europe's social legislation by taking away British people's rights to annual holiday and making them second-class citizens in Europe by withdrawing from the social chapter.
	In respect of the third red line, the Opposition say that our legal system is under threat because justice and home affairs co-operation will no longer be separate from other aspects of European Union activity. I say they should listen to Professor Alan Dashwood of Cambridge university, a leading professor of European law, who says that the provisions we have negotiated constitute "a very solid safeguard".
	For every item of justice and home affairs activity, existing or intended, we will have the right to opt in or to opt out. The treaty extends and strengthens our existing opt-in on visas, immigration, asylum and civil law to areas of criminal law and police co-operation—for example, combating international terrorism and organised crime.
	The Opposition say they fear dilution of foreign policy power, but foreign policy will remain in a separate treaty, which reinforces its intergovernmental nature. The Foreign Affairs Committee agrees. Unanimity will remain the rule for setting policy. The Foreign Affairs Committee agrees.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Miliband: I will give way in a moment when I reach the end of this section of my speech.
	An explicit treaty provision excludes ECJ jurisdiction over common foreign and security policy. The Foreign Affairs Committee agrees. The accusation that we will lose our seat on the UN Security Council is nonsense.

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Miliband: I promised that I would give way to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and then I shall of course defer to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) who has long experience as a distinguished parliamentarian.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. At the beginning of his speech, he referred to a small number of organisations that back the constitution, which included the bishops. I am rather surprised by that as there is no reference to our Christian faith in the constitution. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that in the whole document there is no reference to our Christian faith?

David Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the origins of the document and at its preamble he will see a reference to Europe's heritage of all kinds, which different Members can interpret in different ways.

Chris Bryant: Is it not true that in a dangerous world, which is insecure for many people, it is more important that we have strong international institutions, not just worldwide but at European level? Is it not also true that there are now few areas where Britain can secure its foreign policy interests without co-operating with others, not least on what Russia has been doing to the British Council in the past few days or when we are trying to secure peace in the middle east?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend puts an important question. I was discussing issues about the middle east and Russia with the Hungarian Foreign Minister today. The European Union adds to our power to do precisely that.

Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the Foreign Secretary, especially for giving way to me so soon after he gave way to the formerly reverend gentleman.
	Why is the Foreign Secretary so diffident? If opinion-forming groups and bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the bishops, the professors he mentioned and all those other marvellous influential groups, are in favour of the treaty, why cannot the people have the chance to listen to those opinion formers and vote accordingly?

David Miliband: I am surprised to have to say this to the hon. Gentleman: the answer is because it is in the House that we make decisions about how to govern our country. It is in the House that we make the laws of our country and it is to the House that people elect us to make those difficult decisions, not to dodge them.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary has just referred to the fact that he does not want to grant us a referendum, but is it not the fact that we can have a referendum only if it is passed by Act of Parliament? In other words, it enhances parliamentary authority if we have the humility to give the people their say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I suspect that is a matter for debate carefully—or not so carefully—disguised as a point of order.

David Miliband: In respect of the structure and content of the treaty, I have set out how it is different. In consequence, the treaty has different consequences from those of the constitutional treaty that was discussed some years ago.

John Baron: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker,
	"The myth that we are threatened with a European superstate is still nourished in the Conservative cul-de-sac. Certainly there are Continental idealists who bitterly regret that it has faded away, but faded it has, as has been clear since Maastricht."
	 [ Laughter. ] Members may laugh but those are not my words; they are those of Lord Hurd and he is right. It is a myth and we should see it as such.
	Rather than setting us on the slippery slope towards a federal Europe, the treaty marks a different point. All 27 member states agreed at the European Council in December:
	"We expect no change in the foreseeable future, so that the Union will be able to fully concentrate on addressing the concrete challenges ahead."
	The Institute of Directors supports that, the CBI supports that and I support it; and it is time the Opposition supported it, too.

John Baron: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No.
	The Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks have said that if the countries of Europe pass the treaty, in the event of a future Conservative Government they will
	"not let the matter rest".
	The Conservative party needs 14 countries to back its drive not to let the matter rest. I hope that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he will name one country—just one—that will support his quest to reopen the treaty. [Hon. Members: "Norway."] Norway is not yet in the European Union. The truth is that there is not even one such country, and what the Conservative commitment means is a further referendum pledge, renegotiation or withdrawal. It is important to look through the consequences.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Miliband: No.

John Baron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Miliband: No.
	The consequence of Conservative policy is not to end institutional wrangling, not to help Europe get on with the real business of serving its citizens, but to prolong the institutional debate that we need to end. The Conservatives say they care about UK jobs, UK security, UK influence and the UK's reputation, but in fact they risk British jobs, British security and British influence to try to control those in their party who brought down John Major's leadership of the Conservative party. John Major used words to describe those people that I cannot use in the House, but we know who they are.
	The Conservatives say they want a Europe that works but in fact they will do everything possible to stop it working. We have had seven years of negotiation and discussion leading to the treaty; the Opposition's policy would lead to a second decade of institutional inertia that diverts Europe from the real issues that confront it.

John Baron: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

David Miliband: No.
	Only this weekend, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks said that he thinks that
	"there is a fairly settled view in the Conservative Party that we should be campaigning for a Europe that addresses global poverty, global warming, global trade".
	That is what the treaty would do, yet the right hon. Gentleman will speak and vote against its provisions in that regard. This is where we learn about the real divide in the debate. It is not about the details of the high representative for foreign affairs; the real divide is between those who believe that Britain is good for Europe and Europe is good for Britain, and those who do not.
	The true heartbeat of the Conservative party is not found in the tradition of lain Macleod, John Major or even Margaret Thatcher. The vision is not Britain at the heart of Europe, but Britain better off out. There is even a group with that name. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who I am sorry not to see in his place, has recently joined—

Hon. Members: Here he is.

Peter Bone: rose—

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber. Excellent. I welcome him—he usually sits immediately behind the Front Bench.
	The hon. Gentleman recently joined the Better Off Out campaign, which says of the modern Conservative party that many of its MPs, MEPs, peers, prospective candidates, officers and members are Better Off Out supporters. Better off out of a single market with 3 million jobs? Better off out of the European arrest warrant and effective action against terrorism? Better off out of joint action to tackle climate change?
	No, Britain is not better off out. If we care about global trade, global poverty and global warming we are better off in—at the heart of Europe, shaping the European Union and making sure it delivers on the issues that matter to us. That is what the treaty offers. That is what the Government offer, and I commend the Bill to the House.

William Hague: It is all too typical of the Government's management of our affairs that the House of Commons has been left with less than five hours to debate a measure of far-reaching importance in which there is widespread public interest. It is typical, too, that the reason for that is two statements, both of which derive from the unremitting incompetence of the Government. It is still more typical that the Prime Minister, having signed the treaty without having the courage to turn up for the ceremony, wants to force the Bill through Parliament but lacks the courage to vote for it himself.
	I must compliment the Foreign Secretary on his speech. We expected him to put the case for the treaty, but not to do so in such a hugely entertaining way. When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked him about the legal force of preambles, he was not really able to give an effective reply. When the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked him about support from House of Commons Committees for his view of the differences between the treaties, he was not able to think of any. When he listed the NSPCC among the supporters of the treaty because of its child protection provisions, he omitted to say that the Government opposed those provisions going into the treaty. It seems like an important omission. They were opposed at the European Convention by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was the Minister for Europe, on the grounds that they would extend the competencies of the European Union—or perhaps that was just an early incompetence from the right hon. Gentleman. If that is to be the quality of the Foreign Secretary's argument, it is a good job that he has the committee of bishops on his side, because there will be nothing left for him but to pray.

Hugh Bayley: Is it not fundamentally misleading for the right hon. Gentleman— [ Interruption ] — and his party to tell the public in Britain that they would renegotiate, when not one single other country and not one single European Commissioner has said that they would be prepared to enter such negotiations?

William Hague: It is hugely encouraging that Labour Members' minds are increasingly concentrated on the advent of a Conservative Government. It is not surprising that they want to know some of these things further in advance, but these debates are about the treaty and the case for a referendum on the treaty, and we will be putting that case during these debates.
	It is worth noting that there is much on foreign policy on which the Government and the Opposition agree. Even on European matters, the commitments that we have made—in fairness, I must add that the Foreign Secretary did mention them—to work for a European Union concerned with the great challenges of global poverty, global competition and global warming, rather than with the aggrandisement of its own internal institutions, have been echoed to some extent by Ministers.
	At the Lisbon summit, the Prime Minister called for a focus on the challenges of jobs, prosperity, the environment and security—we agree with that—but while the aspirations and the language may often seem similar, the trouble with the Bill and the treaty is that they fly in the face of that British aspiration to create an outward-looking rather than an inward-looking Europe. In a Europe that needs greater flexibility, the treaty moves more power to the centre. In a Europe where nations need the freedom to compete, it will narrow those freedoms. In a Europe committed to democracy, it will take more decision making away from democratic control.

James McGovern: rose—

William Hague: I will give way in a moment.
	Astonishingly, the treaty will also weaken one of the greatest strengths of the European Union for the past half century: its commitment to undistorted competition in the single market—an outcome that can only have resulted from the supine ineffectiveness of Britain's negotiators. On top of all that, the treaty creates for the first time sweeping provisions for its own amendment without recourse to further treaties, and it brings about fundamental change in the institutional structure of the European Union—changes that the Government initially opposed, then were happy to define as constitutional in their implications, and now pretend are matters of little importance, about which the people of this country need not be troubled.
	The most serious objection to the Bill, irrespective of its merits or lack of them, is that the Government intend to take it through Parliament without any of the consultation of the people that was promised at the last election, brazenly abrogating the commitment made by every party in the House to hold a national referendum in this event. The case for a referendum rests in part on the constitutional significance of what is proposed. When the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), was asked on 6 June 2005 what were the constitutional aspects of the treaty that merited submission to a referendum, he said they were the creation of a permanent President of the Council of Ministers and a European Foreign Minister. Both of those provisions remain in the treaty today, and the right hon. Gentleman is the Lord Chancellor today. That was his opinion at the time.

Ann Clwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore regret opposing a referendum on the Maastricht treaty?

William Hague: I will tell the right hon. Lady the difference between then and now. Then—

Jeremy Browne: You were in government.

William Hague: That was a difference—something of which Liberal Democrats can only dream—but of course, for the purposes of this argument, the important difference now is that no political party in the 1992 election promised the people of this country a referendum on the Maastricht treaty; in this case, every political party promised the people a referendum. It is therefore a matter of trust in politics and of the honour of our politics that that referendum should be held. The European Foreign Minister has been renamed the high representative of the Union, but as the Foreign Affairs Committee explained in its report only yesterday,
	"We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign policy in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."

John Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend further remember that during the 2005 election, when some of us said that we needed to debate this huge transfer of powers because it was so important, the Labour party said that there was no need for that debate in the election, because there would be a referendum later? That is why this is such a cheat.

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, because the case for the referendum rests above all on the need for the House and the Government to honour commitments solemnly given. How many times have each of us in the House toured schools and colleges saying to young people that they should take an interest in politics, that their vote makes a difference, and that what is said at election time really counts? What are we to say to them in future—that the fact that they elected an entire House of Commons committed to a referendum was of no account, that the Government regarded that commitment as a technicality to be escaped from rather than a promise to be kept, and that the promises made at election time do not really matter at all?

Gerald Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: Of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, in a few moments.
	Today in our country, the word of Government is less readily believed than at any time in our modern history. Ministers, instead of tackling the apathy and cynicism that that brings, will only add to it with the weasel words with which they try to escape their referendum commitment.
	Talking of escaping a referendum commitment, in  The Guardian of October 2003 I came across an article with the headlines "We need an EU referendum" and "Nothing will damage the pro-European movement more than appearing to have something to hide". It was written by a certain N. Clegg, who went on to become the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) and is now the leader of the Liberal Democrats. [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] We know that he is not on the plane with the Prime Minister, but for all the difference that he makes to the debate, he might as well be. His article said:
	"The real reason, of course, why the government does not want to hold a referendum is the fear that it may lose."
	His analysis was right, and it is a pity that the Liberal Democrats do not stand by that analysis today.

Jeremy Browne: rose—

William Hague: I see that we have flushed a Liberal Democrat to his feet.

Jeremy Browne: In 18 years in government, the Conservatives never once had a referendum on Europe. The last time there was a referendum on the European Union I was in primary school, and some Members of the House were not even born. The leader of the Liberal Democrats favours a referendum on whether we are, or are not, in Europe. Why does not the Conservative party back that promise?

William Hague: That is apparently the Liberal Democrats' position, and they tried to put it in a reasoned amendment for tonight's debate—but it turned out that it is so crashingly irrelevant to the issue that the amendment was not in order. They therefore have the distinction of having adopted a policy so irrelevant to the debate that they will at no stage have the opportunity to vote for it. Even those in primary school could have worked that one out.

Edward Davey: rose—

William Hague: I see that a Liberal Democrat flagship has put to sea.

Edward Davey: There was a vote on that question, through an amendment to the Queen's Speech, but the Conservative party, including the right hon. Gentleman, voted against the opportunity to give the British people a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Does he want to change the position now?

William Hague: The fact that the Conservative party voted in line with its policy at the end of debate on the Queen's Speech can hardly be an astonishing event. It was noticeable that very few Members in other parties voted with the Liberal Democrats on that matter.
	To return to the case against the Bill—

Gerald Kaufman: rose—

Frank Field: rose—

William Hague: I promised to give way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), so I must do that first.

Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to promises made in general elections. Does he remember that he led his party into the 2001 election on the slogan, "X days to save the pound," and is it not a fact that the pound remains safe today—[Hon. Members: "It worked!"]

Stephen Pound: Yes, I'm still here.  [Laughter.]

Gerald Kaufman: I repeat: is it not a fact that the pound remains safe today because the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his exchange rate mechanism colleagues did not get the chance to save it?

William Hague: I am sure that we will work out that question in the end. Yes, the Conservative Government did enter the ERM, but I seem to remember that the Labour Opposition and the shadow Cabinet, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, were solidly in favour of doing so, so he must not be too abusive about the ERM.

Frank Field: Perhaps it will help the Liberals to nail their colours to the mast if I say that their proposal is rather a good idea. Voters in my area are certainly able to take a referendum with two questions. The first would be on whether they wanted to leave the European Union, and my guess is that overwhelmingly, they would, say no. The second would be on whether they wanted the treaty or constitution, and my guess is that they would say no to that, too.

William Hague: It will be hugely cheering for the Liberal Democrat party that somebody somewhere agrees with part of its approach, but that is not a sufficient reason for allowing their policy to be pursued in our proceedings on the treaty. It is certainly our position—and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman's position—that we want to be in the European Union, but we do not want to be taken over by its institutions.

David Blunkett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I must make some progress in a minute, but of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for a very entertaining speech, but surely any Opposition party that aspires to government must answer the following question: given the change that took place following the defeat of the constitution by the French and Dutch voters, and the subsequent return to the table, which led to the protocols and opt-outs negotiated by the Government, what is it that the right hon. Gentleman believes he could achieve through the defeat of the treaty in a referendum, which would lead to our turning to the other 26 European Governments and asking them for something that he has not identified?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman gives me the cue to carry on with my analysis of the treaty and the Bill, because I want to consider the question of what was changed after the defeat in the French and Dutch referendums. On that occasion, there was one friend of the people of France and Holland who was not given an opportunity to say no, if it wished to do so: Britain should have been given its opportunity to say yes or no.
	The Foreign Secretary regularly parrots the only defence available to the Government, which is that the constitutional concept has been abandoned, and that there has been fundamental change. However, he omitted to mention that paragraphs 1, 4 and 18 of the mandate for the treaty set out how almost the entire contents of the draft constitution are to be brought about by changes to existing treaties.

Nia Griffith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: No, I must proceed, in fairness to the rest of the House, at least for a little while.
	It is surprising that Ministers continue to repeat that line, when the European Scrutiny Committee told them in its report:
	"we do not consider that references to abandoning a 'constitutional concept'...are helpful and consider that they are even likely to be misleading in so far as they might suggest the Reform Treaty is of lesser significance than the Constitutional Treaty."
	As Giscard d'Estaing, who has already been quoted, put it in June,
	"public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them 'directly'."
	He went on to say:
	"all the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
	Perhaps the most disarmingly honest description of what had happened came in that same month from the Belgian Foreign Minister, who said:
	"The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable...The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
	Dishonest as the process has been, other European Governments have at least been honest about the outcome. Not so the Government of the United Kingdom, who have persisted in the argument that the treaty is fundamentally different from the constitution. How could an impartial observer assess whether they are fundamentally different or substantially the same? The obvious way is to read the articles of the reform treaty and compare them to those of the constitution—a process undertaken by both the European Scrutiny Committee and the pressure group Open Europe. Both studies demonstrate that the vast majority of the provisions of the constitution are replicated, often word for word, in the reform treaty. According to one count, 240 of the 250 provisions of the constitution are repeated and restored.
	All along, the Government have been unwilling to be frank with Parliament about the process and the outcome. Ministers maintained until the middle of June that
	"nothing that you could really call negotiations have taken place",
	even though we now know that the negotiating sherpas met on 24 January, 2 May and 15 May. Perhaps the Foreign Office officials who went along were just there as tourists. For all the effect they had on the outcome, they might as well have been.
	The criticism levelled at the Government's handling of Parliament has been exceptional. The Foreign Affairs Committee found that the 2007 intergovernmental conference mandate was agreed with little scope for UK public or parliamentary debate and engagement. That sets an unfortunate precedent, and is damaging to the credibility of the institutional reform process. The European Scrutiny Committee—we are talking about Committees with a Labour majority—reported that the
	"process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate."
	The story of the Government in the evolution of the treaty has been one of dissembling and deceit. They set out deliberately to break a firm election promise, denied Parliament and the public information about negotiations that were taking place, and refused to publish information that would help Parliament to come to an informed decision.

William Cash: Would my right hon. Friend be interested to know that, as I understand it, the legal adviser to the Foreign Office who gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee only last month has apparently now been appointed legal adviser to the European Union Committee in the House of Lords?

William Hague: That just shows that the Government have a case to answer. The implications of what my hon. Friend says will be far-reaching.
	The process of sustained deception has left us with a treaty with three principal failings. The first is that it is not necessary. A recent study by the London School of Economics concluded that
	"the 'business as usual' picture"
	of the EU
	"is more convincing than the 'gridlock' picture".
	The French Europe Minister recently admitted that
	"the thing that has most struck me since I took up this job seven months ago is precisely the capacity of an EU of 27 members, and more one day, to take decisions".
	The expansion of the EU to 27 members seems to have resulted in a greater readiness to reach consensus, and a decline in the use of the veto. The wholly welcome agreement on climate change last spring is an outstanding example. That the European Union can achieve a great deal by working together on such issues, and by pushing forward a free and genuine single market, is not in doubt. That makes it all the more extraordinary that one of the first aspects of the treaty agreed last June was the downgrading of the EU's long-standing commitment to undistorted competition. That change was secured by the French Government, with British Ministers apparently asleep at the wheel, although a protocol was hastily added to the treaty reaffirming the objective of free competition.
	European lawyers have been in no doubt about the implications, saying that
	"the excision of the competition principle from the front of the Treaty is a likely to have a number of damaging consequences for EC competition law."
	As far as we know, no effort has been made by the Government to restore "undistorted competition" to its rightful position in the objectives of the Union. It is a sad hallmark of the treaty that its provisions result from British Ministers having things done to them, rather than driven by them. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Conservative party is almost alone, apart from the Dutch Animals party, in its opposition to the treaty. We are not: vast tracts of provisions in the treaty have for many years been opposed by the Government themselves. As recently as June, they fought desperately to stop the EU high representative taking the chair at meetings of EU Foreign Ministers, but a provision for such chairmanship is in the treaty.
	When it was first proposed that EU member states on the UN Security Council should be obliged to ask the high representative to speak for the whole EU when there is a common position, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was the Foreign Office Minister representing the Government, asked for the entire provision to be struck out. However, it is in the treaty. Ministers argued against the creation of an EU diplomatic service, but now it is there. They argued against the self-amending nature of the treaty, but then gave in; they opposed the election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament, but then capitulated; they tried to prevent employment, public health, consumer protection and transport networks becoming shared competencies with the EU, but they failed. They said they were
	"firmly opposed to establishing an European Public Prosecutor",
	but that function is now in the treaty; they insisted that the EU not be given an explicit legal personality, but it is now to be given such a personality; they said that qualified majority voting on proposals made by the European Foreign Minister was "simply unacceptable", but QMV is now there. They objected to the article on the common Union defence policy, but then agreed to it; they opposed the EU having the power to set minimum criminal penalties, but then gave in; they said they would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the third pillar area of justice and home affairs, but they capitulated on that as well. That is not even an exhaustive list. The Government's motto as the treaty has been created is, "Anything for a quiet life, and never mind the national interest."

Hugh Bayley: Because of the nature of interventions, I cannot pick out more than one of the right hon. Gentleman's examples—but why is he so opposed to the single legal identity? It is not a badge of statehood—even the Universal Postal Union has a single legal identity, and the EU already has such an identity—so what is the nature of his complaint?

William Hague: The former Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House of Commons that at his insistence, the question of a legal personality for the EU had been removed from earlier negotiations. He felt so strongly about the issue that the Government eventually went with the flow of the argument in Europe, rather than stick up for their view.
	Let me move on, given the passage of time. Our next principal objection to the treaty is that it damages the British national interest and weakens democracy by setting up a process of continuing integration beyond the control of the electorate. When Ministers say they are happy to sign the treaty but are opposed to any further political integration after that, they are merely continuing the habit of deception that I detailed earlier. The whole point of the treaty is to create a process of further integration, not to bring a stop to it. As the Italian Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, put it:
	"As long as we have more or less a European Prime Minister and a European Foreign Minister then we can give them almost any title".
	That is how many other countries see the treaty, but it is not how it is described by the Government. The creation of a permanent President of the European Council, elected for two and a half years at a time by majority voting, is a major constitutional innovation in the European Union, and is intended as such. We are all conscious in this Parliament, or we should be, of the way in which the job of First Lord of the Treasury evolved in Britain, steadily developing a grip over Cabinet Departments previously independent of it, and developing into the post of Prime Minister.
	The creation of that job took many years—and the present Prime Minister probably feels that it took almost as long to get round to his turn to hold it. To see how the post of a permanent President of the European Council could evolve is not difficult even for the humblest student of politics, and it is, of course, rumoured that one Tony Blair may be interested in the job. If that prospect makes us uncomfortable on the Conservative Benches, just imagine how it will be viewed in Downing street! I must warn Ministers that having tangled with Tony Blair across the Dispatch Box on hundreds of occasions, I know his mind almost as well as they do. I can tell them that when he goes off to a major political conference of a centre-right party and refers to himself as a socialist, he is on manoeuvres, and is busily building coalitions as only he can.
	We can all picture the scene at a European Council sometime next year. Picture the face of our poor Prime Minister as the name "Blair" is nominated by one President and Prime Minister after another: the look of utter gloom on his face at the nauseating, glutinous praise oozing from every Head of Government, the rapid revelation of a majority view, agreed behind closed doors when he, as usual, was excluded. Never would he more regret no longer being in possession of a veto: the famous dropped jaw almost hitting the table, as he realises there is no option but to join in. Then the awful moment when the motorcade of the President of Europe sweeps into Downing street. The gritted teeth and bitten nails: the Prime Minister emerges from his door with a smile of intolerable anguish; the choking sensation as the words, "Mr President", are forced from his mouth. And then, once in the Cabinet room, the melodrama of, "When will you hand over to me?" all over again.
	There is, of course, a serious point to be made. Occupied by someone with the political skill of our former Prime Minister, that post would become, in not so many years, a far more substantial one than the Government pretend. The President would be seen as the president of Europe by the rest of the world, with the role of national Governments steadily reduced and the role of national democracy and accountability steadily weakened. The naivety of Ministers, who think that by signing the treaty they are agreeing to a static constitutional position, is alarming in people with such senior responsibilities. "Ah," they say, "look at the enhanced role of national Parliaments set out in the treaty." If a majority in half the Parliaments in the EU object to an EU measure, they might be able to block it.
	Again, it does not take much political analysis to work out that the chances of that mechanism being employed on any regular basis are vanishingly small. It could be used only if 14 different national Parliaments, nearly all of which have a Government majority, defeated an EU proposal, and did so within an eight-week period. We have only to consider that for a moment, as Members of Parliament, to begin to laugh about it. Given the difficulty of Oppositions winning a vote in their Parliaments, the odds against doing so in 14 countries around Europe with different parliamentary recesses—lasting up to 10 weeks in our own case—are such that even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first-born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of parliamentary votes.
	The last defence of Ministers on the treaty is that they have achieved the defence of their red lines. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, has judged, the red lines "leak like a sieve". The red lines will be much debated over the coming weeks, but the central fact to remember about them is that the Government claimed to have achieved exactly the same red lines when they signed the European constitution and proposed a referendum.
	That brings me back to our strongest objection of all to the Bill. The Government's contention that the treaty is so different from the European constitution that they are relieved of their promise to hold a referendum is shared by few independent observers, and not even by the members of their own party who have given the most time and commitment to the process. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) explained to the Prime Minister—I hope that I shall not embarrass her by quoting her:
	"sticking to your guns in defence of a patently dishonest position is not leadership, but the soft option, and a cop-out from a specific promise made to voters."
	Whatever the niceties of the argument, by no stretch of the imagination is the treaty so different from the constitution as to relieve the Government of their promise. Every survey on the subject has shown that the vast majority in our country would like to have their say. In the words of the Belgian Foreign Minister, the Government are banking on the treaty being too unreadable for people to worry about it. However, the treaty's constitutional innovations are sufficiently sweeping, and its erosion of our national democracy sufficiently serious, that many of us will have no hesitation not only in voting against it, but in voting for a referendum at every opportunity.

Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: No, I shall not give way any more; I am coming to the end of my speech.
	All of us must remember that we have no democratic mandate from the voters to agree to the treaty without their approval. None of us told voters that we would agree to a treaty nearly identical to the constitution and ram it through without their being allowed to have their say on it in an election or a referendum.
	If the House voted for such a referendum, it would be a magnificent assertion of honour in politics and trust in the nation. If it fails to do so—if it passes the Bill without a referendum—it will have connived in the actions of a deceitful and cowardly Government whose actions will have further stained the name and reputation of our politics.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.

Mike Gapes: I want to confine my remarks entirely to the foreign affairs aspects of the treaty. In the past day, there has been some media comment on the recommendations and conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee's report "Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty". I want to place on the record its main recommendations and conclusions, because many of them have not been adequately aired in all the newspaper and other media coverage of the past 24 hours.
	The Select Committee's report is comprehensive and no doubt there will be an opportunity for detailed consideration of it when the Bill goes to Committee. However, I want to place on the record the fact that as a Committee we believe that
	"the new institutional arrangements for EU foreign policy created by the Lisbon Treaty have the potential to encourage more coherent and effective foreign policy-making and representation."
	That is from paragraph 221. Paragraph 118 states:
	"the Common Foreign and Security Policy will remain an intergovernmental area, driven by the Member States. We welcome this."
	We also believe that
	"the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy"
	is there to enact agreed foreign policy and
	"has the potential to give the EU a more streamlined international presence and to contribute to the more coherent development and implementation of external policy."
	That comes from paragraph 154.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: No. I have only eight minutes and I want to make some progress.
	Paragraph 220 states:
	"the creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and of the European External Action Service, represent major innovations in the EU's foreign policy-making machinery."
	It goes on to say that the new post and service do not
	"risk undermining the Common Foreign and Security Policy's intergovernmental nature".
	However,
	"the Government is underestimating, and certainly downplaying in public, the significance of their creation."
	I therefore welcome the fact that today the Foreign Secretary started to make the positive case for the proposals. I personally believe that more should have been done last year, before the intergovernmental conference in June and again before the intergovernmental discussions in October, to explain things to the public and Parliament. The Committee is critical—I do not resile from that—of the fact that we were not in the loop last June, when those issues were under consideration. However, that does not mean that the treaty proposals should be opposed, and I should like to make a number of other points on that.
	The Lisbon treaty raises concerns about how the post of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy could work. The Committee wants more information about that as we fear that the relevant individual, whoever they are—whether Mr. Solana or a successor—could face work overload because of the large burdens of foreign policy representation, chairing Council of Ministers meetings and having a role in the Commission. That issue needs to be considered in some detail.
	In addition, as has already been mentioned, the Lisbon treaty provides for the high representative to speak at the United Nations Security Council. However, as our report states in paragraph 157, that
	"will make little difference to current practice. It will not undermine the position of the UK in the United Nations system nor the UK's representation and role as a Permanent Member of the Security Council."
	The reshaped role of the President of the European Council has already been mentioned. We believe that that
	"could help to generate consensus among EU leaders and lead to greater continuity in the chairing of the European Council. However, we are concerned by the current degree of uncertainty which surrounds the role and by the potential for conflict with the High Representative in representing the EU externally."
	However, we need more information about how that will work in practice.
	There is also the question of how the external action service will work. We believe that it may reduce
	"duplication between the Council Secretariat and the Commission"
	and facilitate
	"the development of more effective EU external policies, operating in parallel with rather than as a substitute for national diplomatic services."
	We also believe that the service offers the opportunity for
	"a greater intermingling of national and EU personnel and careers."
	However, we are concerned about how that will work in practice and we want to be sure that British Foreign Office officials seconded to the service see it as a good move in their career development. They should be able to come back to our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and have a proper representative role. We want working for the service to enhance career prospects.
	Finally, we believe that
	"the Commission's loss of the right to make Common Foreign and Security Policy proposals is welcome because it represents an important assertion of the intergovernmental nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy."
	We all want more effective co-operation and co-ordination between the European Union's 27 member states. However, there has been ambiguity about how the foreign and security policy works because of the role of the Commission. The treaty clarifies that issue: it makes it explicit that the policy is intergovernmental. It moves current Commission staff away from the Commission and puts them under the high representative, who is accountable to the Council of Ministers.
	The process is therefore clearly intergovernmental and will work only if very competent people are in those jobs. We need to ensure that high-level people are appointed and that high-level people from our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office play a role in the process. In that way, when the treaty is adopted by the 27 member states next year, and when it begins to come into effect in 2009, we will be sure that British personnel and influence are at the heart of the new European Union foreign and security policy structures—not marginalised as, sadly, they would be if some Members of the House had their way.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and his Committee have given an analysis that confirms that the Lisbon treaty keeps foreign policy on an intergovernmental basis but makes changes to the institutional workings that will enable British foreign policy to be more effective. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on what is actually in the treaty. The Conservatives objected to the speech by the Foreign Secretary, who addressed what is actually in the treaty, not the mythical monsters that some Members of this House wish to conjure up. His main argument was that the Lisbon treaty's prime purpose is to improve how the enlarged European Union works. We agree.
	The truth is that the Lisbon treaty is, to quote Lord Howe, "entirely sensible"—so much so that very few political parties in Europe oppose it, besides the rag-bag of parties to which the Foreign Secretary referred. Currently, the Conservatives are in the European People's party in Strasbourg, but not one other member of the European People's party agrees with the Conservatives. Perhaps the Conservatives are going to leave the EPP—we do not know; they seem unsure about it—but they have indicated that, if and when they do so, they want to work with the Czech ODS party, which, interestingly, is in favour of the treaty and against a referendum on it.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether his party is going to rat on its promise of a referendum by abstaining or by voting against a referendum? The people should know, and I hope that they turf out all the Liberal MPs who have misled them on this issue.

Edward Davey: We are proposing a referendum—on Britain's membership of the European Union. I will deal with the question of the referendum in detail towards the end of my remarks, when I will argue that the Conservatives' position is the one that is less in keeping with their manifesto promise.
	The case made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—that the treaty is unnecessary and somehow threatens the sovereignty of the United Kingdom—is frankly absurd. An EU of 27 member states, and growing, cannot operate on the same basis as one that only just served the needs of an EU of 15 states, so arguments for trimming the bureaucracy and making the institutions less cumbersome should be self-evident.

Gisela Stuart: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could help me, because I am getting slightly confused. We used to be told that we needed this in order to enlarge from 15 to 24, and then even further, but now that we have had a few years of 27 working quite well, where is his argument that we need this for the EU's further working?

Edward Davey: Many people in the EU and in this House believe that we need a treaty to try to ensure that the enlarged Union continues to work better, because there are areas that have not worked so well in the past. I am interested in the hon. Lady's position on many of these issues, because in March 2004 she was against a referendum on the constitutional treaty, whereas now she is in favour.

Gisela Stuart: rose—

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady has voted in this House against a referendum on the constitutional treaty.

Gisela Stuart: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If a Member is accused of having taken a particular position, is it not incumbent on the accuser to provide the evidence for that?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The point in question is a matter for debate rather than a matter for the Chair.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) checks the voting record on 30 March 2004, she will find that she voted against a referendum on the constitution.

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I want to make a little progress.
	Liberal Democrats argued during the parliamentary scrutiny of the Amsterdam and Nice treaties that those treaties did not go far enough to prepare the EU for enlargement because they failed to streamline the EU's institutions and to make the EU more accountable and transparent. We therefore naturally welcome the treaty and will vote for the Bill's Second Reading.
	To be fair to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, the main intellectual thrust of his speech was that the treaty was unnecessary, and he deserves an answer on that point. He argued that the EU has worked quite well since the 2004 enlargement—the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—and seemed to be relying on some academic work that has been released recently. I have to tell him that I have read that work and spoken to the authors, and they do not draw the conclusions that he claims.
	Let us take Professor Helen Wallace. She does say in her paper that the EU has not suffered from gridlock owing to enlargement, and she does say that non-treaty reforms have helped, yet she is absolutely clear that the treaty reforms are needed to develop the EU in areas that have long proved difficult, including foreign policy co-operation and immigration, and that reforms making the EU more accountable and transparent are good in themselves and ever more necessary in an enlarged and growing EU. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to say that enlargement does not need Lisbon given that he led the opposition to Amsterdam and Nice, without which enlargement would not have been possible. The Conservatives remain in the most ludicrous position of any political party in Europe—always willing the enlargement end and always opposing the enlargement means.
	Members wanting to vote against Second Reading have a tough case to make, based on what is actually in the Bill and in the treaty, for they are, in my view, voting against the national interest. A treaty that increases the UK's voting power in the Council of Ministers is in the national interest. A treaty that allows this Parliament, working with other Parliaments, to have EU proposals reviewed and, indeed, stopped is in our interests. A treaty that, for the first time, sets out the right and the process for a member state to secede from the EU can hardly be said by Eurosceptics to be against the national interest. More positively, a treaty that, for the first time, explicitly makes one of the EU's objectives tackling climate change must be in all our interests. A treaty that makes the EU more accountable and responsive to citizens, voluntary groups and civil society as a whole, with citizens' initiatives and a new requirement for the EU's institutions to engage with the public, must be in the interests of the public.
	The Conservatives are in the faintly ridiculous position of voting against a reduction in the number of EU Commissioners, against the EU being able to dispatch aid more effectively to parts of the world devastated by natural catastrophe, and against making it easier for countries to co-operate on the exchange of information about sex offenders. Is that what they are against?

Richard Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about the arguments that he advances, why does he not get confirmation from the people by pursuing the proper course that his party promised—that there would be a referendum on these matters?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has been true to his word throughout, because he has voted with the Liberal Democrats for our proposal for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. I agree that that is what we should really be doing if we are going to be true to the previous policy of a referendum on the constitutional treaty.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	What all those examples illustrate is the continuing problem of the modern Conservative party—sensible measures rejected because the word "European" is associated with them. The speech by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was an attempt to make his party's viscerally anti-European position seem presentable, but while he and his party leader are unable to say publicly that they are happy to remain in long-term working with German and French colleagues in the European People's party—the party of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy—few in Europe will take them seriously. Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, observed about the Conservatives that he hoped
	"they would appreciate the support they received from the EPP"—

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The role of Opposition parties is clearly to oppose the Government and to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may well have the opportunity to put his point later in the debate.

Edward Davey: Let us remember that the hon. Gentleman voted against a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, and denied his constituents that vote. I was quoting the presidential candidate for the Republicans, Senator John McCain, who was observing— [Interruption.]

Jeremy Browne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to describe my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) as a traitor?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman use that expression, but there is a considerable undercurrent of conversation going on in this Chamber. If that word was used, he would have been out of order.

Edward Davey: For the third time, I will try to quote Senator John McCain. He observed that he hoped the Conservatives
	"would appreciate the support they received from the EPP when they were wandering in the wilderness."

Greg Hands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	The problem for the Conservatives is that by opposing yet another sensible European treaty, they seem to many foreign observers to be still in the wilderness—a place where Britain's influence on international affairs simply could not be exercised. That is why the Foreign Secretary was right to make the positive case for the European Union.

Geraldine Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of positive points about the treaty. I support it because it will improve matters. However, what is fuelling the desire for a referendum is the fact that no one under the age of 50 has had a chance to vote on our membership of the EU. People see a continuous progression towards political, economic and social integration, and I do not think that that can be sustained indefinitely without addressing the democratic deficit.

Edward Davey: I totally agree with the hon. Lady. She has made a case for the Liberal Democrat position on a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union.
	The case for the EU is there, both in the history books and in the well-known future challenges for our country and our world. Fifty years ago, would anyone have predicted decades of peace in northern Europe, such that the very idea of war between millennial adversaries has become unthinkable? Forty years ago, could we have hoped for the ending of the dictatorships that littered southern Europe? Thirty years ago, would anyone have predicted the reunification of Europe, with communism finished and democracy taking root in central and eastern Europe?
	I do not seek to credit the European ideal or Union alone with those achievements, but equally, to deny a central role for the EU in our modern day and in our future peace and prosperity is historically illiterate. When we look ahead to climate change, to the fight against terrorism, to defeating internationally organised crime and to meeting the global economic challenges, I frankly find it inconceivable to believe that we would be better equipped without the EU, and without a strengthened EU.
	That is the challenge for our Prime Minister. He talks sensibly about a global Europe. He describes himself as a pro-European realist. He sets out an attractive agenda, beyond Lisbon, of completing the single market and focusing Europe on enterprise, innovation and skills. Yet he seems to go out of his way to lose friends and lose influence in Europe—from snubbing the other 26 EU leaders at the signing of the Lisbon treaty, to the provocation of calling a European economic summit in London at the end of this month to which only France, Germany and Italy have been invited. The Foreign Secretary has been put in an impossible position, trying to build alliances and partnerships throughout the EU, while the Prime Minister cuts across him.
	It is good to sign new trade deals with China, but when it comes to the crunch, who should be our closest and strongest allies? It is surely those countries that are democracies, that abide by the rule of law and that respect human rights. Indeed, it is through the power of the EU collectively that we are far more likely to influence China on the road to liberal democracy. It is time that the Prime Minister learned to love the EU and see it for what it really is, outside the broken kaleidoscope of Mr. Murdoch's editorial rooms.
	Having made the case for the treaty and for the EU, let me come to the issue of referendums. Do we support a referendum on the Lisbon treaty? As my immediate predecessor as foreign and commonwealth affairs spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), said in this House:
	"In our judgment, the changes made to create this amending treaty have altered its constitutional significance, so we should not hold a referendum on it."—[ Official Report, 12 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 430.]
	I share his view. Instead, we argue for a different referendum—a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Let us face it: a referendum on any EU treaty would become a referendum on the UK's continued membership. Let us not have that debate by proxy on a treaty referendum. Let us have a debate that people want by asking a straightforward in or out question.

Gisela Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the treaty is so good and so incredibly defensible—at one stage he would have put it to the people, but he now feels it should be an in or out question—why does he not take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and agree to a referendum with two questions? One would be on the treaty, and the other on continued membership.

Edward Davey: Because, unlike the hon. Lady, I think that the constitutional treaty is rather more significant than the reform treaty, and that there are differences between the two. There are significant differences between the two treaties in terms of content. Lisbon is not a constitutional treaty; it is an amending treaty, which has profound implications.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We all know why the Liberal Democrats have adopted this position. It is because they want to be able to say in their manifesto at the next election that they voted for a referendum at some juncture, when in fact they are denying themselves the opportunity of voting for the only realistic referendum on offer. That is a mean, grubby, typical Liberal Democrat trick.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Gentleman had had the guts to vote with his colleagues for our amendment in the debate on the Loyal Address, we might have been able to get the referendum that the British people actually want.
	I was talking about the differences between the two treaties.

Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: The biggest difference of detail—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly is not prepared to give way at this moment.

Edward Davey: The biggest difference in content undoubtedly concerns justice and home affairs. By securing an opt-in provision in relation to EU co-operation on policing and criminal justice, the Government significantly changed the force of the treaty as it applies to the UK. That ought to be accepted by all parties. I also believe that there is a real difference in how the charter of fundamental rights now applies to the UK, which the protocol, declaration and other treaty amendments have achieved. I know that that is contentious, but I am sure that we will debate it at length in the Committee of the whole House.
	The most significant differences between the two treaties lie in the constitutional terms of those treaties. While Lisbon is just another amending treaty making a number of important, if modest, reforms, the constitutional treaty was something quite different. It abolished all past treaties, to replace them with one document: a new constitution. I believe that people have passed over that point and failed to grasp its significance. The Labour Member of the European Parliament, Richard Corbett, has it right when he points out that the DNA of mice and human beings is 90 per cent. the same—it is just that the remaining 10 per cent. is quite important. It is the same with the difference in nature between Lisbon and the constitutional treaty: the 10 per cent. difference moves one from a mouse of an amending treaty through to a fully evolved constitution.
	A referendum on the constitutional treaty would therefore effectively have been a referendum on the whole of the EU—Rome, the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. It would have been about the complete constitution.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Surely treaties should be judged by their practical and legal effect. That is why two Select Committees of this House, which included Liberal Democrat members, concluded that in practical and legal substance the two treaties are the same. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman failed to deal with my point that the constitutional treaty would have created a completely new constitution. The reform treaty is an amending treaty. If he cannot understand that, I really despair.
	I shall quote the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks who said, when talking about the constitutional treaty, in 2006:
	"the fact that it was a constitution, not simply a treaty—would have revolutionised the EU."
	For once, he was right. That is why he ought to recognise that what the Liberal Democrats are saying now, in our proposal for a referendum on EU membership, is far closer to a referendum on the constitutional treaty than the Conservatives' paltry offering.
	We believe that the British people have been denied a say on Europe for too long—on all the treaties and on the cumulative effects of all the changes. Unlike the Conservatives, who denied them a vote on Maastricht, we think that the people should speak. As a party that is strongly committed to the European Union, we want to offer the people the referendum that they really want. I hope that the House will allow a substantive amendment to the Bill to that effect so that we can begin to settle the European question and to draw the poison of anti-European feeling from the British body politic for a generation.

Michael Connarty: The process that seems to have been generated tonight has added a number of things to the debate that have not been present so far. One such addition was the overall argument proposed by the Foreign Secretary that, despite all the other arguments, he supports the measure because it will improve the working of the EU. That is echoed again and again when I speak to representatives from other countries. It has certainly, I have no doubt, improved the tenor of the debate in the House of Commons. Not only has it improved the humour, which I have found to be most welcome among the genuine and manufactured emotions that such debates always generate, but we will also have 10 days of debate on the policy areas covered by the treaty and the EU. That means that the UK Government will have the chance to give their view on those policy areas as well as the actions that they want to take. That will be welcome. If that is the sum of the positives that the European Scrutiny Committee generates for the Government, that is reward enough.
	The treaty of Lisbon will bring a solution to the institutional problems; there is no doubt about that, because the treaty agreed before that one was inadequate. The treaty of Lisbon will create a smaller Commission, which everyone welcomes, and a more balanced voting pattern in Council, with a better voting balance for the UK. It will bring in double majority voting on the qualified majority vote, which is also welcome.
	The treaty will introduce a five-term presidency. People keep calling it a permanent presidency, but it will cover five six-month periods, creating a two-and-a-half-year presidency with a maximum of two terms. I welcome the fact that someone will be appointed who is not a member of the Commission and whose loyalty will be to the European Council and the Governments who sit on that Council.
	The treaty will also introduce an EU high representative for foreign and security policy. Unfortunately, that person will also be a Commission vice-president and, oddly enough, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Council. I would have thought that the Foreign Affairs Committee might have said that it was a step too far to give that person, who is really a Commission member, the chairmanship of a Council of Ministers. That person will also be given the right to speak in the UN and to sign on behalf of the EU when all 27 countries are unanimous. I spoke today to people from Hungary and to their Foreign Secretary. It made sense to them, and to the representatives of most of the small countries in the 27, to have such a person who speaks on their behalf and gives them more priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said, that will not take away any power from the two permanent members of the UN Security Council—France and the UK—which was rumoured to be one of the problems that some had with the proposal.
	The main aim of the treaty is a final move to what is called the Community method, which people must consider again and again. The preferred Community method of policy making is QMV in the Council with amendment rights and co-decision making by the European Parliament, enforcement by the Commission and final appeal not to the courts in people's own lands but to the European Court of Justice. That is the new heart of the treaty. It is a new settlement, a more European settlement and a more Eurocentric settlement. That is not to say that I oppose that. We must accept that that is where Europe is going. We must either be there, influencing Europe in that format in the future, or we must walk away. There is no middle ground. We are choosing tonight. I shall vote for this treaty, because I believe that we should be moving into the centre ground.
	The Foreign Secretary is a bit like King Canute, who is much maligned, because he set out to demonstrate that the tide could not be held back. My right hon. Friend has shown today that he, too, believes that the tide cannot be held back. Unfortunately, I believe that the ebb tide—people must accept this—will take the centre of power away from this Parliament to Brussels. There is no doubt about that. At present, before the Lisbon treaty goes through, the balance of power is held between the Commission, the UK Government in Council and that derived from the scrutiny of the UK Parliament. That balance is similar in each member state. Eventually, because of unanimity, it is possible to appeal to the UK courts to judge how the power should be applied. After the treaty is up and running, and after the five years that it will take to erode—or to leak—the red lines that we have set on all the areas that we have opted into, the balance will be between the Commission, national Governments in Council and the European Parliament.
	The role of national Parliaments will be massively diminished. In fact, as recently as December it was suggested by European parliamentarians from a number of parties at a Future of Europe conference, that our Parliaments' role will be to try to influence the European Parliament, so that it can make the appropriate amendments to what comes out of the Council. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am not prepared to accept that.

Angus Robertson: As a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am grateful to the Chairman for allowing an intervention. I want to raise the question of member state Parliaments and the role that they might play in a subsidiarity early-warning mechanism. He knows as well as I do that it is almost impossible to hold Governments to account within an eight-week window, which is how the mechanism is supposed to work. How does he imagine that that will ever be made to work across 27 member states, many with two parliamentary Chambers? It is not merely a question of one initiating the process.

Michael Connarty: I shall come to that. It is part of the main points with which I want to conclude. Those are interesting matters, which should be taken seriously by Parliament. Much has been said tonight, not only by the Foreign Secretary but by others, that suggests that there will be more influence for civic society—that was the plea—or a citizens' referendum. The reality is that at the Future of Europe conference a colleague of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who sits with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, said, "Just accept it. The orange and yellow cards are worthless. They will never work.". The Commission, I have to say, had been saying similar things for some time.
	It is worth mentioning that although Maastricht made greater changes, the Lisbon treaty represents a more significant point in our relationship with Europe. Its significance might not be as great as that of Maastricht—and especially of the social chapter—but this treaty is the tipping point. It is the point at which we will begin to adopt the European Community method on most matters, apart from tax and social security, and in a number of respects—perhaps most of them—in common foreign and security policy. In most other things, we will move into a situation where we will have QMV, where the Commission will administrate and where the European Court of Justice will judge.
	Many comments have been made about the passerelle clause. Some people have said that if we mention that clause, people will go to sleep, but let us tell people what it is about. We have defined it as a gangplank. I coined the phrase because it is a bit like walking the plank. When a passerelle clause has been passed over—when it has been voted that the Council should go from a veto to QMV—it is like walking off a plank. There is no way back: the veto has been given away, and it cannot be got back. The Council has moved to a new way of working.
	There are passerelle clauses in respect of common foreign and security policy—many of them are in the treaty sections that we have signed. We will have to decide whether we will move to the new method of decision making or try to hold on to what we have. We have to do that by withdrawing from our agreements.
	On the involvement of the national Parliaments and passerelle clauses, I want the Government to make it clear how we are given the powers that the Prime Minister said that we would have. He said in the Liaison Committee, in reply to me, that the clauses that change the decision-making process in European Council meetings of the Heads of Government from unanimity to qualified majority voting would only be enacted after a vote on the Floor of the House of Commons. I want to see that clearly spelled out at some time during these debates.
	Let me turn to the subject of the opt-outs—or opt-ins.

Gisela Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Michael Connarty: No. I shall not take another intervention, as I am conscious that people want to speak.
	I have asked the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary several times to explain how the opt-out arrangements will happen under protocol 10. The Foreign Secretary told us in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that there are 70 to 80 areas that we have opted into already where we will need to make a decision at some time to opt out or opt in under the Community method. The point is, will it be done by stealth in the Council or will it be referred to this Chamber at all? That must be clarified in order for us to have any sense that that Government are keeping faith with us.
	My last point is about the operation of the trigger mechanism. For the yellow card, 33 per cent. of countries are required to object and for the orange card 55 per cent. of countries must object. How do we signal our view? We believe that the European Scrutiny Committee or some other Committee of the House should have the right to trigger the process immediately, in consultation with the devolved Assemblies and Administrations. Are the Government prepared to give us that power and some control over subsidiarity?

Malcolm Rifkind: It is right that there should be great passion in the House about Europe because Europe and Britain's role in it is one of the great issues, for not only us but the rest of our continent. The question is not whether we should be in the European Union but the sort of Europe that we wish to develop and whether Britain can be comfortable in it.
	The House is being asked to determine two matters today. The first is the referendum and the second is whether the treaty, regardless of the referendum, deserves the House's support. The Foreign Secretary's attempt to create a new explanation for why the Government committed themselves to a referendum is unconvincing. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made it clear that he believed that the people should have their say on such an important matter. The Government's fear of losing such a referendum has made them change their position. It is not a question of the legitimacy of the treaty if there is no referendum, but of severe damage and erosion to the public's faith in Government.
	However, the second matter is far more difficult—indeed, more difficult than some of the speeches have suggested. The question whether a treaty deserves our support is usually expressed in absolute terms. Many hon. Members are happy to describe themselves as hard-line Eurosceptics, who would be content for the country to leave the European Union and would oppose any treaty, whatever its terms. Others are instinctively sympathetic to whatever emanates from the EU and want to be positive towards it. For what it is worth, I describe myself as a moderate Eurosceptic. I am against the single currency and many of the EU's aspirations. I have therefore tried to consider the matter objectively and ascertain whether the criticisms of the treaty have substance or are exaggerated.
	The criticisms have some substance, but not as much as is often suggested. If, for example, one considers whether there is significance in going from a treaty to a constitution or a constitution to a treaty, the critics are right that 95 per cent. of the documents are exactly the same. However, I am delighted that the treaty is no longer described as a constitution. Although calling it a constitution did not make the EU a state, it nevertheless disclosed a state of mind that wished to move Europe in that direction. When the document was called a constitution, included a proposal for "a Foreign Minister" and referred to flags and anthems, it contained all the paraphernalia of a state or state in the making. Although the treaty is not substantively different, I welcome the change in terminology.
	To those who disagree, let me say that I remember debates in the House when the European Assembly was becoming a Parliament. It was argued that the word "Parliament" was significant, regardless of any other change of powers. It is important to make such distinctions. The European Court of Justice may have to interpret the significance of the document one day. If it is a constitution, the court could grant it the same significance in overruling other legislation as the Supreme Court in the United States would grant to the US constitution.
	The proposal for a president is unnecessary. It is not an absolute requirement and I would be happy if it was not there. However, I refuse to accept that it has the sinister implications that are sometimes suggested. The person concerned will be a President of the European Council and his powers will be substantively the same as those that the President of the European Council has held for several years. He will be appointed for two and a half years, and therefore undoubtedly have more influence. However, he will be more like a President of Switzerland than a President of the United States. He will be an ambassador. Perhaps Tony Blair would be an adequate choice because, as with his current job in the middle east, the President of the European Council will argue the views of other people. In the case of the European Union, that would be the view of Governments in the organisation.
	I do not believe that a high representative is necessary, but most people should welcome the combination of two jobs—that of the External Affairs Commissioner and that of the high representative.
	I set myself a fundamental test. If the proposals are accepted, would the British Government—whoever are the Government—be prevented from initiating British policy in the most crucial matters, which affect our national interest? If the terms had been in effect some years ago, would we have been unable—for good or ill—to go to war in Iraq against the wishes of most of the other countries of Europe? Would we have been able to defend our interests in the Falkland Islands or pursue our policy on other aspects of foreign policy? Only if the answer to those questions is no can we pass the rather dramatic judgment that is sometimes expressed. I am not keen on some aspects of the powers, but we should get them into proper perspective if we are not to do ourselves a disservice.
	However, the most significant aspect is the opt-outs that the Government have negotiated, if they are watertight. The Government have a long way to go to prove that they are watertight. If they can do so, the facts that the charter of fundamental rights will not be justiciable and that we will not be bound by justice and home affairs matters unless we so wish, are important.

Michael Connarty: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the evidence that the Foreign Secretary gave to our Committee, he will realise that my right hon. Friend made it clear that there is no opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights. It was never claimed to be an opt-out.

Malcolm Rifkind: I accept that it is an opt-in, but that has—or is claimed to have—the same practical effect on the fundamentals.
	My point is wider than the importance of such measures for justice, home affairs and the charter of fundamental rights. If we are to have a long-term future in the new EU, it can be only on the basis of a EU that accepts what is often described as variable geometry: different member states determining for themselves the amount of integration that they are prepared to accept. I can live with our membership of the EU because we are moving in that direction, not because I have a naive belief that many in the EU will not continue to strive for a federal outcome—I have no doubt that they will. As long as we in the UK are not forced to follow them, I can live with our membership.
	We are not in the single currency and we are not in Schengen. If it can be demonstrated that the charter of fundamental rights will not be justiciable and cannot, therefore, overturn our national law; if we can make decisions about justice and home affairs; and if member states have a similar right to decide for themselves the parts of future proposals for integration that they are prepared to accept, we should find that sort of EU acceptable and be prepared to live with it.
	I make this sober point to my colleagues: we are a party that remains committed to our membership of the EU. That means that, if one is a member of a European Union with 27 member states, conclusions will occasionally be reached that we do not like. Compromise is required because that is the nature of any international organisation. That should be acceptable to us in the context of our sovereignty and national interest, if we can opt out and decline to be part of the process on issues to which we attach great importance. That is the way that the EU is evolving. If—it is a big "if"—the treaty will move us further in that direction because of the opt-outs or opt-ins, we should welcome it.
	The Government are acting in bad faith on the referendum. Regardless of the merits of the treaty, they made a promise to the British public and it is foolish and against their interests to deny that. They make themselves look petty, mean and unconvincing by doing that.
	On the wider question of the treaty, we should be critical of those aspects that we do not like—I have not had time to refer to many elements that I personally do not like—but we do ourselves no service and do nothing to support our interests if we exaggerate the problem. The Government have much work to do.

Gisela Stuart: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) because he started with the important point about the labels that we give people for their attitude towards Europe. We do not have the language to describe those of us who broadly agree with co-operation between European Union member states that goes beyond pure trade relationships but also make critical assessments. We immediately jump to calling people Europhobes or Europhiles or Eurosceptics. Just for the record, I find fault with the treaty and with the organisation, but I absolutely refuse to be labelled as a bad European or a Eurosceptic by anyone for that reason. I will take no lessons from anyone about that.
	That leads me on to why we need to consider the substance of the treaty. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because he started to describe the consequences of some of the provisions in the treaty and to explain what will happen. People might like it or not like it, but we need to start saying what is within the treaty.
	I suggest that those on our Front Bench should look a little at the history of how we ended up with this piece of legislation, which started life with the Laeken declaration. The treaty started because there were perceived to be two problems in the European Union. One was to do with its bureaucratic efficiency—at that stage, by the way, a review was needed for enlargement, so let us park that one for the moment, because enlargement happened. The second and much more fundamental problem was a disengagement from the institutions by the people of Europe and the loss of the kind of democratic legitimacy that people had hoped for when we started direct elections to the European Parliament. In reality, all that happened was that fewer and fewer people either turned up for elections or related to the institutions.
	Someone then came up with an answer—a constitution. That treaty—the constitution—was continuously changed. The French rejected it, and we started giving it different names, but we should waste no time today asking whether the treaty is the same as the constitution. It is a bit like Heinz baked beans: with more than 57 varieties, we know what the thing is in essence, and in essence it requires democratic legitimacy from all the people in the member states of the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with what my hon. Friend has been saying. Does she agree that that disengagement is potentially dangerous, as was illustrated strongly by the French and Dutch referendums, where the elites and the political parties all recommended a yes vote and the people voted no? That disengagement could undermine democracy in Europe.

Gisela Stuart: Indeed, and that leads on to the referendum. When our then Prime Minister promised a referendum in 2004 on the new package of changes to the European Union, he did not do so for constitutional reasons; he did so because it was the right thing to do. The second point about that is that this Labour Government, more than any other Government, have used referendums to settle certain questions—we used one in Scotland and Wales, and we even used one to decide whether Birmingham should have an elected mayor. The notion that using referendums undermines parliamentary democracy therefore does not sit easily with those on our Treasury Bench. Given that we had a promise about the use of a referendum, and given that one of the most fundamental problems in the European Union is a disengagement and a lack of democratic legitimacy, I cannot for the life of me understand why our side is reneging on its promise.
	Even though I am not surprised, neither can I understand what the Lib Dems are doing. They are the most pro-European party when they are here at Westminster, but when they go back to their constituencies, especially to some seats with fishing communities, they might as well be to the right of the UK Independence party. Now, rather than honouring what is a question on the treaty, they are asking, "In or out?" To me, that is using blackmailing, bully-boy tactics, which for a mature democracy is a sign of real intellectual and political poverty. If the Lib Dems really think that we should be asked, "In or out?" please let them go and ask that question, which is a perfectly legitimate question.
	That takes me back to my opening remarks. It is perfectly possible to wish to be a member of the European Union, but to find significant fault with the treaty, which may be sufficient for people to say no. However, the fundamental argument about democratic engagement is this. Our Parliament and other national Parliaments are not being given more real powers; we are simply being given more information. We are being given a mechanism that, as any Committee that has considered it or anyone who really thinks about it will know, is completely and utterly ineffective. This mechanism requires two thirds of a national Parliament to arrive at a view opposing that of their own Government. However, this House, for example, has no tradition of being given a mechanism for arriving at a view opposing the Government. The Government can always whip anything through.
	For that reason, if those on the Treasury Bench are serious about some of the changes, I urge them to consider, for example, one of the Foreign Affairs Committee's recommendations, which was that rather than having a vote, should there be further extensions to qualified majority voting, there should be primary legislation, which would be required to pass through both Houses. Let those on the Treasury Bench look at how this House could scrutinise things with much greater power or at what the European Scrutiny Committee said about who should trigger the mechanisms.
	At the end of the day, however, if we are really serious about restoring democratic accountability and faith in the political process, about bringing people closer to the European Union and about what the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks—I wrote this down; he said, "This is good for Europe and it is good for Britain"—when he prayed in aid the NSPCC, the bishops and so on, how about praying in aid the people of this country? If the treaty is good, let us go out and ask them. Then the Foreign Secretary will have a mandate and an endorsement, which could not be undermined by any successive Government, of whatever shade. Let us ask the people and have faith in them.

Kenneth Clarke: I am in favour of the ratification of the treaty of Lisbon, so I shall be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. I am also totally opposed to the whole idea of a referendum on this or similar treaties. Referendums are not part of our British constitution, and I regret the fact that they are in constant danger of becoming such.
	My views should come as no surprise to anybody—I am sure that they do not—as I spoke and voted accordingly on the 2004 treaty that was originally put forward. I am astonished to find, three years later, that we are having such an agitated debate. As we have had a general election since, I am one of the few Members of the House who fought the last election on the basis that I am now putting forward. It is true that my party's manifesto said differently, but no person who follows politics in my constituency can conceivably have imagined that I supported that part of the manifesto. Indeed, I was quite clear about that to the very few people who bothered to raise the subject with me—I have received six or seven letters on the subject in the past five years. I therefore feel no sense of a lack of democratic legitimacy in putting forward my view.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend can have no principled objection to a referendum, because he was a member of a Government who agreed to have one if Britain should ever join the single currency. Indeed, that is now the established position of all the political parties. If it is right to have a referendum when we export monetary policy, surely it is also right to have one if we are contemplating exporting our political powers.

Kenneth Clarke: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I personally regard myself as bound by the commitment, which I was persuaded by the then Prime Minister to enter into, that we would have a referendum on the single currency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) took part in persuading me and the now Lord Heseltine to agree to that, but I have frequently said, and I repeat now, that it is the biggest mistake I have ever made in my political career.
	I have consistently argued and voted against referendums on the European Communities Acts, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, and the treaty of Amsterdam and so on. I am quite sure that had a Conservative Government remained in office after 1997 and had we negotiated a treaty of the kind that eventually came to pass in Lisbon, we would not even have contemplated having a referendum. We were always consistent in the past, and I remain consistent now.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that, had the Lisbon treaty been negotiated by the right hon. Baroness Thatcher as she negotiated the Single European Act, she would have come back to the House and claimed it as the kind of treaty for which we ought to vote? There would have been no referendum on the matter, and we would have marched into the Lobby at her side.

Kenneth Clarke: I regret having to turn my back on one of my oldest personal friends in the House. I agree with him entirely: we would have wished to have negotiated this treaty following the enlargement of the Community. Mrs. Thatcher always regarded referendums as instruments that were useful to dictators and others who wished to get round Parliament.
	I want to ask myself how we got into this situation. I now find myself in the Chamber surrounded by people who are wildly agitated about the question of a referendum when actually a majority of them went through the last election saying that they wanted a referendum on this subject. I am afraid that I blame the previous Prime Minister. He entirely shared my view of referendums on European treaties. Indeed, he told me so when I had a conversation with him on the subject. More importantly, however, he told more important people than me that he was against holding a referendum—most particularly, President Chirac, whom he assured that he would not have a referendum.
	I now move into theory, rather than reporting what Tony Blair told me, but I am quite convinced that the only reason that he startled me, and most of his own party, by completely changing his position on this question was that he had had conversations with Mr. Rupert Murdoch. With the approach of a general election, he was absolutely desperate—as new Labour Ministers, for some curious reason, always are—to have the support of  The Sun, and a deal was done that he would hold a referendum on this treaty, which, for some reason, he was confident that he would win, in exchange for Murdoch not turning  The Sun against him at the election. I do not regard that as the basis for a great move forward in the British constitution.
	I personally think that referendums are a way of weakening Parliament and getting round parliamentary authority on key issues of this kind. I have never accepted that they should be the way forward. For example, the House should vote this evening that it is in favour of the Bill and of the treaty. If we were then to hold a kind of organised opinion poll in which the right-wing press would seek to achieve the result that it wanted, and if ratification of the treaty were defeated, would we all be expected to come back to the House and vote against our judgment of the national interest in line with the result of the referendum? And who on earth is going to tell us what to do in the circumstances that would follow that? That is a question to which I hope briefly to turn in a moment.
	I am not remotely impressed by the absurd argument that the treaty is different from the last treaty, although I welcome some of the changes. That is a theological nonsense from people who regret having got themselves into this position and are now trying to get out of it. They are at least now moving to a better position. Nor do I agree with all this red line nonsense as a way of describing the negotiations. It has been a mistake made by British Governments over the years to present their European policies as though they are always going to Brussels to fight demons, and to achieve great victories by beating off threats to our interests. The fact that every Prime Minister since Edward Heath has used that approach to describe such negotiations is one reason why the public have turned so Eurosceptic over the years.
	Instead of going through the pantomime of refusing to sign a treaty—that he had negotiated and agreed to—in the company of the other Government leaders, the present Prime Minister should have concentrated, as should the previous Prime Minister, on presenting the public with his argument on why he had negotiated and signed the treaty, and why he believed that it was in the British interest to ratify it. Instead, he followed inglorious precedents by trying to pretend that he was not really there at the time when the document emerged, which is no way to sell it.
	I am pro-European, as everyone here knows, and I will not labour my reasons for so being. Pro-Europeans should support a treaty that will improve the workings of the present institutions. I am persuaded that it is no longer essential that an enlarged Community should have to have the new treaty, but the mechanisms for decision making in the Union will be very much improved if we adopt it, compared with what we have at the moment. For that reason, I support it.
	I am in favour of the new arrangements for the presidency. It is nonsense to suggest that the President of the European Council will be some kind of giant political figure, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea has just said. I actually think that the new arrangements will be an improvement on the six-monthly national presidencies. Now that we have 27 member states, the present system would involve the Head of Government of each member state coming along once every 13 or 14 years with an agenda for the next six months. All too often, such agendas are aimed at domestic political opinion. Under the new system, we shall have some consistency.
	I believe that having one foreign affairs spokesman, rather than two, is an improvement. The new arrangements are perfectly satisfactory because they confirm the intergovernmental nature of foreign policy making. I am all in favour of having a smaller Commission. That is essential and long overdue, although I am amazed that it has been achieved. The new treaty actually strengthens the power of the Councils of Ministers—accountable to Parliaments—at the expense of the Commission. I would have been worried if things had gone too far in that direction, because we need quite a strong Commission to keep the European institutions functioning. However, a smaller Commission is long overdue. I also approve of the improvement of the qualified majority voting system.
	I also believe that, although I supported the original treaty, there were real problems with the precise status of the charter of fundamental rights. I was alarmed that quite sensible employers and a number of trade union leaders appeared to believe that a re-statement of the undoubted right to strike meant that, somehow, the European Court was going to reopen all our trade union law. I always thought that that was barrack room lawyer nonsense, but—although I have been rude about the red lines—the changes that have been made between the Giscardian treaty and the present one represent an improvement that clarifies the situation and should put those arguments to rest.
	Why do I take this view, when I find myself surrounded by colleagues who take quite alarming views? At least no one has yet gone as far as  The Sun, which has declared to its readers that this treaty, if ratified, will result in the end of Britain as an independent state. I have heard that argument used against the European Communities Act 1972, against the Single European Act and against Maastricht. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) used it against the Amsterdam treaty. It is less likely to be true in this case than it ever was in any of the previous ones. People will conclude that we are going to lose control of our foreign policy, for example, only if they believe that the European Union is some kind of organised conspiracy in which the other 26 member states are prepared to sacrifice their sovereignty in order to destroy ours. I do not believe that, and I therefore support the Bill.

Frank Cook: Perhaps I should remind the House that although I am a simple soul, I am not stupid. I was soft enough, however, to allow myself to be persuaded to chair the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons when our delegates to the Convention were bringing back their reports to the House. So I have some knowledge of this matter, albeit slightly second hand. That is why I found the tone of the original protestations that prefaced the debate today somewhat hollow. With the exception of the delegates who came back to present their reports, I do not think that the Committee ever saw more than six Members of this House. They would get up and make a statement, then get out as soon as they could. Alternatively, they would take advantage of the first Division in the House to go down and vote. I am sure that they did vote, but they certainly did not take the trouble to return to the Committee. We therefore found ourselves with a plethora of Members of the other place who were prepared to discuss these matters, but we did not get much feedback from this Chamber. I have therefore found today's protestations somewhat false.
	However, I welcome the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He put his finger on what this is really about. This is only the Second Reading debate, so these proceedings will go on for some time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the debate was about two decisions: one on a referendum, and one on the treaty. Anyone who has been in the Chamber throughout today's proceedings will know that we have spent at least two hours, probably more, discussing a referendum. Only in the last three speeches have we been able to get down to the nuts and bolts of the treaty—the essential matter that we should be discussing.
	I am at a loss to know why we should have this problem with the referendum. Residents of Norton in my constituency told me that they wanted a parish council, so I told them to have a referendum, which they did. They knocked on doors—but only on the doors of people who wanted a parish council, so they were disbarred for not allowing anyone to vote against it. However, the residents of Billingham had a lot more sense: they knocked on all doors, and got a resounding yes. They now have a parish council. Fine.
	We had a referendum on having a north-eastern regional assembly; every door was knocked on then, but we ended up with a resounding no. I seem to recall that Hartlepool and Middlesbrough had referendums on whether they should elect a mayor. They both received yes answers, though the one voted in a monkey and the other a policeman. Stockton had much more sense in its referendum, saying that it did not want an elected mayor anyway. Then there was Scotland, which acquired an Assembly; as did Wales, but it had a referendum in which only half the people participated, and only half of those said they wanted a Parliament.
	We have already used referendums, as I have shown, so why do we not just agree to have one, which would allow us to save all the time we have wasted on debate tonight? We could get into Committee, discuss the details of what is and is not in the treaty and achieve some sort of sensible resolution, without all the wasted breath. Ironically, while I am for a referendum, I am also for the treaty. I shall vote for it on the basis that it is an improvement, moving towards regularisation and providing a more disciplined approach when an increasing number of nations are trying to work together. I therefore appeal to my Front Benchers: for heaven's sake, reconsider having a referendum. If they did, three quarters of the people on the Conservative Benches would have nothing left to say.

Ian Paisley: I was thinking earlier of the night I sat here when the United Kingdom joined the European Union, or whatever one wants to call it. Members spoke very solemnly and seriously and many of them were laughed at when they described what the European Union would eventually look like, but their prophecies have all been fulfilled. I remember one Member saying that we were going to lose our fishing rights, and they laughed at him, yet we have lost our fishing rights. When the United Kingdom went into the Common Market, as it was called, we had the majority of the fishing grounds, but we were soon left with none.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) made a good point when he said that we should look into the future and try to find out what is really going to happen. There is no doubt that the power of this Parliament, as we know it today, is going to be removed. We have seen it in the past, and we were told that these things were all good for us. I believe in nations coming together, pooling their various views and offering help for the good of each one, but when it comes to a dictatorship where ordinary people do not have a say on what is done, we lose out completely.

John Redwood: Given that the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland and of Scotland wish to have this referendum, cannot they use their powers and devolved money to hold referendums at least in those two parts of the United Kingdom in order to show up the Government and give England a real cause for anger?

Ian Paisley: I wish I could answer yes to that, but I cannot because there are some money limitations and we do not have the authority so far—but we are discussing that matter at the moment. If Northern Ireland wants to express a view on this, I feel that it should be entitled to do so within this United Kingdom. Even if it is only a consultative thing, it does not matter, as the people will be given the opportunity to express their views. I think that Scotland may like to do the same, but I would not dare to speak for Scotland, even though my mother was a Scot from Morningside in Edinburgh.
	I sat in the European Parliament for a very long time. As we look to the future, it is sad to see that people's ambitions to do something for Europe have been set aside and that tonight we are spending time debating whether the people of the United Kingdom are allowed to say yes or no. That is the real purpose of this debate. It is simple. Then, if they are allowed to say yes or no, it is settled. The people speak and if we are democrats, we have to bow to what they say. The people may do something that we may not admire, but that is democracy. We must hear what the people have to say.
	From where I stand and as I look at it, I do not want to be an enemy of Europe. I know that because when I go abroad to sell Northern Ireland, I know how much we need the help and friendship of the rest of the globe. I want to be a friend of Europe, but I also want to be a good friend of my own country and I want to stand up for the principles that made our country great in the past and that can make her great again. As I go around the world, I find many people looking to the United Kingdom. They say, "Yes, you folks succeeded in many ways"—and so we did—and I trust that we will succeed again as a nation.
	I believe that the Government should look very carefully at the question of the referendum and they should not be so hasty. After all, they were converted to it originally, back in 2005, when we heard that it was
	"a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe".
	It was said that it would be put to the British people in a referendum and that the Government would "campaign wholeheartedly" for a yes vote to keep Britain a "leading nation in Europe". It was Labour that argued for that. Indeed, Mr. Blair himself said that we should not reject the treaty, only to bring it back with just a few amendments to have another go at it, yet that is exactly what the Government are now attempting to do. Those are their own statements and I could repeat many more.
	I also mention the French President, who at a closed meeting in Europe said that he could not win a referendum. He prophesied that Gordon Brown could not win it either. He said that we would just have to hold out on this referendum. According to a survey conducted by the EU itself, only 39 per cent. of the people of Britain are reckoned to be in favour of EU membership, and that is not the majority of the people. That can be tested. The Government would be wise to think again. It is no skin off anybody's nose to lose an election. The person who loses an election had the guts to put his views and to say, "Here's what I believe. I want you to endorse it." I have fought elections and lost them, and fought elections and won them. We should have our finality in the ballot box and let the people speak.

Mark Hendrick: The reform treaty is not about making the European Union more powerful or creating a European state; it is about making the Union of which we are already part more manageable and effective. With 27 countries already in the Union and more queuing to join, it is essential that the EU institutions function better.
	Many Members have spoken about a referendum, but there is a great deal of substance in the treaty to speak about. The commitment to a referendum, however, was based on the European constitution—the constitutional treaty. We now have an amending treaty. A constitution would have replaced all existing treaties, effectively refounding the European Union, but the reform treaty does not do that. Therefore, it is not a constitution. The mandate for the intergovernmental conference in October spells that out:
	"the Constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned".
	Nor does the reform treaty surrender any vital powers over issues of sovereignty. We retain national control over justice and home affairs, social security, tax, foreign policy and defence. The treaty is much less significant, as colleagues have said, than the Single European Act signed by Margaret Thatcher, and the Maastricht treaty. We did not have a referendum on those treaties or any others.

Daniel Kawczynski: What consideration has the hon. Gentleman given to serious concerns about the treaty expressed by the trade unions?

Mark Hendrick: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) answered that point earlier, in that it was presented as something that it was not.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has just rather dismissed the view of the trade unions. Is he not aware that the TUC voted by a substantial majority for a referendum last September, and voted against the constitutional treaty in the previous year?

Mark Hendrick: My hon. Friend knows very well that the unions are now on board with the treaty and do not oppose it.
	Much has been made of the similarity between the reform treaty and the constitution, but there have been many changes. Unlike the constitution, the reform treaty contains no symbols of statehood, such as provision for a flag or an anthem; it includes an explicit provision for EU competences to return to member states if countries agree; it makes no reference to the primacy of EU law; it strengthens the powers of scrutiny for national parliaments; it keeps the common foreign and security policy in a separate treaty; it adds two declarations confirming that all member countries see foreign policy as the responsibility of member states; it contains new clear language excluding European Court of Justice jurisdiction over CFSP affairs; it contains a UK-specific legally binding protocol on the charter; and it states for the first time that national security is the sole responsibility of member states.
	Under the reform treaty, the European Council will have a full-time chairperson or President. European leaders will choose a President for up to two and a half years. The present system whereby a member state has the presidency for six months might have worked with 12 or 15 states, but with 27 member states it becomes unworkable: smaller countries struggle with the overwhelming task of running a complex agenda; bigger countries mix up national priorities with the EU interest; and rotation means too little follow-up. The President of the Council will be appointed as the servant of the leaders of national Governments and the purpose is to strengthen the Council of national Governments in relation to other EU institutions; and that is similarly the case with the high representative. The EU's national leaders, not the president, will take all the final decisions when they meet together.
	Increasingly, the concerns of British citizens lie outside our borders. The challenges of climate change, international terrorism and economic migration mean that international relations can no longer be separated from our day-to-day lives.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the EU reform treaty enshrines fisheries as an exclusive competence of the European Union. Will he explain what advantages that will bring to fishing communities?

Mark Hendrick: There is no change. The situation is as it is now— [Interruption.] I must continue; the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue several times.
	The reform treaty will merge two external affairs posts, giving the EU a more effective foreign policy unit and a clearer voice internationally. The reform treaty includes a declaration signed by all 27 members that specifies that the new EU position will not affect member states' ability to conduct their own foreign and defence policy. As is the case now, the European Council, acting on unanimity, will set the strategic interests and objectives of the Union. The Council will then task the high representative to take forward activity or make proposals.
	The Council of Ministers currently takes decisions under the complex triple majority voting system of the Nice treaty. The reform treaty's double majority system is fairer and clearer. It will give countries with larger populations more weight. That is in the interests of the UK, which will have 29 votes in the Council, which is the same number as Germany, Italy and France. Under the new system, a measure will pass if it is supported by 55 per cent. of member states provided that they represent 65 per cent. of the population of the EU.
	Most decisions in Europe are already taken by majority vote. Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher onwards have supported the move to qualified majority voting because it stops smaller countries blocking legislation that is beneficial to the UK, for instance on the single market. While the Council always tries to reach consensus, QMV will allow quicker voting in a Union of 27 states. However, the UK has retained the right to opt out of decisions on major issues of policy such as justice and home affairs, which is a major difference from the constitution.
	To enforce the principle of subsidiarity, the reform treaty will, for the first time, give national Parliaments the right to challenge a piece of European legislation. If a third of national Parliaments object to a proposal, the Commission must consider whether to maintain, amend or withdraw it. If a majority of Parliaments object to a proposal and the Commission still wants to press ahead with its proposal, the European Parliament and the Council will have to consider both sides of the argument before reaching a decision.
	The reform treaty will therefore revitalise and improve the way in which the EU works. That is undoubtedly in the UK's interests.

James McGovern: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Hendrick: I shall not give way further.
	It is worth remembering that the UK is a member of the EU because, in certain areas, we get better results than if we were to act alone. Without the EU, Britain would be poorer. As a trading nation, we rely heavily on membership of the EU single market of 480 million consumers. More than 3 million British jobs and 60 per cent. of our trade would be directly affected. It is therefore crucial that we continue to engage in the EU and that we develop the leading role that we play in setting its agenda.
	Angela Merkel said recently that it would be impossible to imagine the EU moving forward without Britain. It is easy to see why. The UK has demonstrated its importance in many ways: on climate change and energy; on security and defence; and on Africa. As a result of Britain's special relationships with the United States and now with China and India, given the Prime Minister's recent visits, that influence has been enhanced. Those connections will ensure that the UK will always have influence in Europe. This treaty is good for Britain, good for the country as a whole, and good for the European Union.

Charles Kennedy: For some of us, this debate and what it presages impart a degree of nostalgia. Those of us who went through the nightmare experience of Maastricht and the ratification process—I was a Europe spokesman for our party at the time—are returning, 15 years later, to something that may be similar but which we hope will not be too similar, in political drama and the hours involved.
	I have two recollections from that period. One is of the emergence of the so-called night watchmen. Some are still with us, fellow survivors. I think of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is sitting at the back of the Chamber now, and of others such as Sir Teddy Taylor, the up-and-coming young right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and Jonathan Aitken. The procedures of the House at the time meant that we sat literally throughout the night. My other recollection is of emerging, blinking, into the morning to observe the passage of the seasons as the process unfolded over the months and months that it took. I think that parliamentary procedures have changed for the better since then. Let us hope that the general tenor of our discussion over the coming weeks will also have improved over the intervening decade and a half, and that we do not experience another debate in which the indefatigable meets the interminable.
	I do not want to make my brief speech in any particular party political context, because that has already been done. I want to say a few words in the context of my position as president of the European Movement, an all-party organisation that also contains many individuals of non-party political affiliation.

Greg Hands: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of party politics, will he be helpful and give us an explanation of the Liberal Democrat policy? He has said that the party is in favour of an in-or-out referendum, but that it is opposed to a referendum on the treaty because it is afraid that it will become an in-or-out referendum. Is he in favour of an in-or-out referendum or not?

Charles Kennedy: The experience of all political parties suggests that when former leaders are asked to interpret policy on behalf of their successors they are rarely helpful to anyone, least of all the successor in question. None the less, my sense of parliamentary duty leads me to try to be helpful.
	My answer is simply this. I voted for a referendum over Maastricht, for example. At that point our number were split almost 50:50, and the split was almost generational. Those who, like me, had not been around at the time of the previous referendum were enthusiastic about the idea, while those who had—people such as David Steel, Russell Johnston and Bob Maclennan—were definitely not. It was an interesting gauge at the time.
	I have always taken the view that, at some point in British politics, there must be a further redefining referendum on the European issue. What form it might take and on what hook it might have to be hung, whether it be Maastricht, a single currency or the original prospect of a constitution which has now evolved—I use that word to be as neutral as possible—into the treaty revision in Lisbon, a referendum to lance the European boil one way or another in British politics cannot be averted indefinitely. Indeed, I am surprised that it has not happened already.
	To pick from the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about discussing some of these matters during his private conversations with Tony Blair in the run-up to the last election, I remember having equivalent, separate private conversations along similar lines, when the then Prime Minister was trying to persuade me, as Liberal Democrat leader, to get the Liberal Democrats out of their stated position of favouring a referendum on the principle of a single currency. I said that I was not at all minded to do that, because I thought that it was the right policy and so did my colleagues. He said "But you do realise, Charles, that if we had a referendum the French would not touch it, the Germans would not want anything to do with it, and it would paralyse my entire Government for six months?" That was in the run-up to a period during which he decided to invade Iraq, which, I would suggest, paralysed his Government for a hell of a lot longer than six months. It is remarkable how the arguments can change.
	I think that there will have to be a referendum. I also think that, whatever the issue, the argument will evolve, as many arguments have—they did when we debated Maastricht, and I suspect that they will again over coming weeks as the hours wear on and tempers become frayed—into, essentially, the question "Are you in and engaged with Europe, or are you disengaged and therefore effectively stepping back from Europe?" That is why I think that the position we are advocating in that respect is consistent and honest.

Ian Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Kennedy: I am very short of time, but I like the hon. Gentleman. He is good entertainment value, and we will look to him in hope over the coming weeks.

Ian Davidson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but surely he was guilty of gross exaggeration when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats were split 50:50. It was more like 6:6.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify something for us? If I show him my motion, will he show me his? Can we hold both referendums together? I am quite happy to vote for us to stay in Europe if he is prepared to vote for us to abandon the treaty.

Charles Kennedy: Even I, in my parliamentary and leadership dotage, can recognise that as not being a very good deal from either a personal or a Liberal Democrat point of view. I think I will pass on it, but I will refer it to the leader of my party.
	It seems to me that there are just three big points of principle that should lead us to vote for the Bill's Second Reading—as my party will—and to want the treaty to come into being and subsequently into operation. As the Prime Minister has said, that will enable us as a country to go beyond Lisbon and get on with the job of Europe, under the revised mechanisms envisaged here.
	First, there is the issue of enlargement. Whether or not the present mechanism would lead to gridlock, as many fear—myself included—I think that everyone will acknowledge that it can be improved, and that the treaty offers a mechanism for such improvement. We hear concerns, expressed today with characteristic wit by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), about the accrual of power that can take place in certain positions in institutions at European Union level. Talk to people in and around the Commission—talk to the Commissioners themselves—and what do they say about the Cabinet style of Commission government? They say that the larger the Commission becomes—the more Commissioners there are—the greater is the propensity for items on the agenda not to be addressed properly, and to be referred back to the Commission President. There is a steady accrual and centralising of power in his office, simply because of the sheer growth in the size of the Commission. That office cannot be kept in check to the extent that is healthy and necessary, which is why the relevant provision in the treaty is so important.
	The second issue has already been touched on. Whether we call this a treaty or a constitution—I am not into the semantic argument—I have always told my friends of Eurosceptic outlook that they are the people who should be most emphatically in favour of some codification of the responsibilities of the institutions of Europe, the rights of redress of the citizens of Europe when they are dissatisfied with those institutions, and ultimately, if they take the most profoundly Eurosceptical view, the right of a nation state to have an agreed legal mechanism enabling it to withdraw from Europe. What we have before us provides that mechanism, and it therefore seems to me that the sceptics more than anyone else, if they chose to pursue a different argument from the one that they have pursued, could commend much of the treaty revision.
	Thirdly, it depends on how we see our position in the world. Everyone agrees now, since the end of the cold war and all the rest, that we live in a multipolar world. As one who is both a pro-American and a pro-European, I do not think that the British position vis-à-vis the United States or Europe is an either/or, and I hope that it never becomes that. However, whether there is a continuation of the style and substance of the present Bush presidency, which I hope does not happen, or whether the new president is a Democrat—and I am under no illusions there either—the fact remains that we cannot hope as an individual country to influence the direction of global United States foreign policy to the extent that we can as full top-table participants in the European Union. That is the choice that is increasingly opening up for our country, and I hope that this treaty provides a way of developing it through the foreign policy process that it will put in train with a view to the future.
	My final point is on a matter that the Minister for Europe knows about only too well—as might the Foreign Secretary, who made a commendably pro-Europe speech, unlike some Government Members. Let us use language accurately to commend the treaty.

Doug Henderson: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, referred in his contribution to the modern Conservative party, but I do not know quite what he meant by that. That said, we heard some interesting speeches from Conservative Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made a typically well thought-out speech outlining his particular, very progressive views, which have not changed over the years and which put Britain in the right context within Europe. We also heard a speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who described himself as a mild Eurosceptic. When he said that, I looked at the faces of some of his colleagues, and when he sat down having finished his speech I think they were thinking that he is not quite the mild Euro-sceptic he had claimed to be, as his views seem to be a lot nearer to those of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, helped to clarify in my mind the nature of the modern Conservative party. It was clear that he could not command his party behind his position, and that there were too many influential members of the party who had taken a thoughtful and independent view about the role of Britain in the European Union. He made an excellent speech in technical terms, and it was very humorous in his usual fashion, but he expressed the views of the old Conservative party back when he led it, when he used many foreign policy wickets to bat against the EU, believing that that reflected the view of the British people. He got caught out then, and I predict that if the Conservative party continues on that track, it will get caught out yet again.

Kelvin Hopkins: The old Conservative party that I remember got us into the EU or Common Market in the first place, and it also got us into the Single European Act, the exchange rate mechanism and signed us up to Maastricht. That was the old Conservative party. The current party is rather different.

Doug Henderson: I remember an older Conservative party that was colonialist and imperialist and wanted to impose little England principles throughout the whole of the world; it depends on what historical time perspective we relate to.
	The issues before this House tonight are very straightforward. If a Member is to vote against the treaty, they must be convinced and be able to demonstrate that it is against Britain's interests, and if they have any commitment to the European ideal of keeping peace, stability and economic prosperity in Europe, they must also be able to demonstrate that it is against Europe's interests.

Elliot Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Doug Henderson: I think I have given way enough, as I know that other Members wish to speak.
	Let us take the test of Britain's interests. If a Member believes that Britain should be a modern, progressive European state and, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) said, that it should be able to speak convincingly in a European context even sometimes after having spoken to the Americans, it must be credible in its relationships with the other EU partners. We must be credible on economic policy, on the single market, on the environmental issues—which most Members would probably agree can only be resolved internationally—and on foreign and security policy. The red line in that area is important as I believe the British people want to be able to have a distinction on foreign and defence policy, but in terms of most of the current challenges we face in the world we have no option but to work with, not against, our EU colleagues. We have to work with them, and we will not be able to have influence unless we have credibility. The treaty passes the British test of having a modern Britain in Europe.
	Is it the right treaty for Europe? If a Member wishes to vote against it on that basis, they must be able to demonstrate that it would cause more damage in Europe than it would cause benefit. The treaty's proposals are reasonably modest. They help to bind the EU together, and to establish a stronger relationship with the larger EU countries, which is demonstrated in the new regulations on voting powers that will come into place. It is also important that those countries feel a common bond with the new, emerging states. There has been agreement on that. If we look at the responses of the emerging states in the EU at the various Councils where these matters have been discussed, it is clear that they more than anyone else agree—Poland, perhaps, excepted, although it has also come round—that this is an important contribution to moving forward and to helping bind them into what they believe the EU is about. They want to be part of an EU that seeks to live in peace and stability. They want to have a demonstrable say in foreign affairs, and to have a sensible economic system that allows enterprise and growth but also looks after social concerns. When I visit the new countries, those are the issues that they say are important to them. If Members believe that that is the case, they have no case to argue against the treaty on the grounds that it is not in the interests of Europe.
	The treaty is in the interests of Britain and Europe, but there are other questions that must be resolved, such as the referendum. I must admit that I was not initially enthusiastic about having a commitment to a referendum. Now the question is whether there is a difference between the constitutional proposition that was initially put forward and the treaty. That relates to what the original constitution and the treaty have to say about security policy and the role of the nation state. Those are important points, which we might address in more detail in Committee. However, the basic issue is that the constitution brought together the previous treaties and established a constitutional basis for the future of Europe so that if anyone wanted to amend it, they knew what they were amending. It was a fundamental constitution that would bind together the EU countries. The treaty is not that; instead, it represents the same kind of development that came about as a result of the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, and it is of far less consequence than the Maastricht treaty, whose impact was much more fundamental.
	Should there be a referendum? I know we will come on to that in our 20 days of consideration. If the treaty is different from the constitution, the commitment that the Government gave does not carry forward to the treaty. Therefore, it is proper that this House should say, "Setting that aside, is it valid for us to allow the British people a referendum on the treaty that is currently before the House?" If it was not valid to have a referendum on the Maastricht treaty all those years ago, what is the case for having one now? In anyone's calculation, this treaty is far less significant than the Maastricht treaty. If we have a referendum on this treaty, the EU will become ungovernable in the future should other countries want to have referendums on every single development and change that the EU must make in order to bring itself up to date with whatever are the issues of the day.
	The House should support the Second Reading, and I see no case for a referendum.

William Cash: When the Second Reading goes through tonight, as we assume it probably will, the European caravan will move on and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and a number of others will doubtless cheer, but the issue of principle is clear. We should oppose this treaty because it undermines this country and its voters, it was pushed through by deceit in the first place and it was rammed through by the Whips.
	The Government pretend that they are drawing red lines. Tony Blair, whose last defiant week in office was dedicated to his potential future as President of Europe, had the last laugh on the Prime Minister as he substituted Europe and his own potential supremacy in place of that of his former Government. The red lines have as much chance of holding back the tide of European law as King Canute had when he predicted that it would be possible to hold back the sea.
	I see an avalanche of European laws in the European Scrutiny Committee week after week. It is like a tsunami of the kind clearly predicted by Lord Denning in those legal cases so many years ago.

Elliot Morley: I do not think it fair to say that there is nothing of benefit in this treaty. The House has heard, for example, the child protection benefits in terms of development. Most importantly, it contains big environmental improvements in sustainable development and climate change. How can the Conservative party be taken seriously on the environment when it is prepared to vote against those improvements in the treaty?

William Cash: It is because the issue of principle, for me at any rate, on this Second Reading is whether the articles of this treaty should be implemented into United Kingdom law or whether they should be renegotiated, and where the boundaries should be between the European Union and the UK as regards our freedom, our democracy and our daily lives. The treaty, merging all the existing treaties into a new European Union, is a fundamental change, whatever the Foreign Secretary may say. It merges those treaties with the mass of accumulated functions since 1972 and would, combined with the new type of primacy that that has imported, transform the constitutions of Europe and the United Kingdom.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend referred to an avalanche of EU law. I wonder whether he is aware of this quote from Jacques Delors, the former EU president. He said:
	"Up to 80 per cent. of legislation is of Community origin. I am afraid some national parliaments will wake up one day and their outraged reaction will place obstacles in the way of progress towards European Union."
	Does my hon. Friend think it time that we brought that day forward?

William Cash: I certainly believe that we must renegotiate the treaties.
	This treaty is more important than the Maastricht one. We have waited and seen for far too long. We must stop this caravan and send it back. The issue in Committee will be to decide which articles of the treaty must be renegotiated. The Government must be put to the test, and we must use the time available to be direct and effective in this battle.
	Today is not exclusively a debate about a referendum, essential though that is in the national interest. A referendum is the solution to the issue of principle, because political parties, Parliament and much of the media have for so long failed to give proper time and attention to the issue, in the context of the European Union, of the great democratic principle of who governs us and how.
	I am delighted that the Conservative party and its new leader are firmly behind a referendum. The Labour party was right in 1975—the Foreign Secretary should take the smile off his face—as indeed was Tony Blair on his commitment on the original constitutional Bill, persuaded into it as he was by the present Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice. To their shame, they have reneged on both matters. The issue is a matter not only of law, but of policy, economics and sovereignty. It is about the impact on the daily life of every person in this country, in virtually every area of policy. It deals with questions relating to schools, hospitals, public services, local and central Government—through the control over the economy—defence, foreign policy, immigration, business, law and much else besides.
	The Government stand indicted for their broken promises on not only the referendum, but the red lines and the charter. They also stand indicted on their claims for the success of the European Union—the European Union does not work. Indeed, just this morning we heard the Prime Minister praising our historic ties with India, which, generally speaking, are justified, particularly since democracy has taken root in that great country. However, is the European Union to dictate our economic relations with India? Why should we not develop our own special relationship with India, building on the best of the past and on economic co-operation, and promoting our common resource of the English language, as we could elsewhere in the Anglosphere world and the Commonwealth based on free trade and co-operation? Trade with other European nations is important and can contribute to that process, but it cannot do so with the European Union as a single legislative entity with legal personality, and certainly not with the current customs union.
	If the holding of a referendum is so important—it is because of the fundamental change involved—it cannot be abandoned merely because the Labour Whips force the treaty on to the statute book. The Leader of the Opposition is right to say that we cannot allow matters to rest if, as is more than likely, a referendum is not won tonight or in Committee. He is right to concentrate on a referendum now and to vote directly against the Bill. He would also be right to commit to a post-ratification referendum in due course, as I urged in my recent early-day motion, which has the support of more than 40 colleagues from the Back Benches alone. That is because a vote born out of deceit on the issue of who governs must be put right. If this Parliament is to be trusted, the people must have their say and Members of Parliament must have the humility to realise that.
	If the call for a referendum is defeated during the course of the Bill's progress, a referendum in any event will have to be proposed in our manifesto and implemented under a Conservative Government, whether or not other member states have ratified. If France and the Netherlands, not to mention Ireland, Denmark or Harold Wilson in 1975, can with impunity reopen negotiations and reverse decisions already taken, as we have so many other times with other treaties over the centuries, so too can the United Kingdom under a new Conservative Government. We must argue for this in the country with passion and conviction.
	This treaty is a European manoeuvre. It was concocted by the Eurocrats, by Germany and by France, and by the betrayal of this country by this Government. Some 70 per cent. of those who have recently been asked said that they wanted these merged treaties renegotiated into an association of member states. As Churchill said in Zurich in September 1946:
	"We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed."
	That is the line we should take.
	I put it to the House that in Committee we must demonstrate how much we must leave out of the treaty, which merges the existing treaties, so that we can form a reasoned basis for proposing a proper renegotiation of each sphere of policy and principle contained in the existing treaties, and insist on trade and co-operation in Europe, but not European government. I am not speaking nationalism, but the national interest. Our involvement in global trade must not be determined by European government claiming falsely to speak with one voice.
	Others have spoken—rightly—of foreign policy, the European presidency, the legal personality and over-regulation, as well as of the red lines and other vital matters, but I conclude with a plea for the supremacy of Parliament, upon which all other matters turn. In amendments to another Bill, whipped in both Houses recently, the Conservative party has already adopted my proposal to override the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore, above all, to require the United Kingdom judiciary to obey that latest law. The supremacy of Parliament, which, I point out to the Foreign Secretary, includes authorising a referendum—something that itself enhances parliamentary authority—must be affirmed in the text of the Bill, because the treaty seeks to infuse the European Union into our constitutional and legal framework, so as to leave little or nothing on which the voters can maintain freedom of choice in our democracy for which so many have fought and died. We must amend the Bill and erect a legislative redoubt that will ensure that the Bill and the treaty, if it were to pass into law, would guarantee the Bill of Rights and parliamentary supremacy, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.

Austin Mitchell: I will not even try to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—I could not—but if this debate is a foretaste of the 20 days to come, it is a very gloomy foretaste indeed. We have heard a couple of excellent speeches, from the Opposition Benches unfortunately. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave a brilliant speech and although our former Prime Minister is angling to become President of the European Union, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks still has prospects as president of the Oxford union—he could keep the flag flying there.
	The former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made a fascinating speech. Euro-enthusiasts on the Labour Benches were saying, "I wish I could have given that speech". It was honest and entertaining; I did not agree with much of it, but it was certainly effective.
	However, most of the debate has not risen above arguing that if we pass the treaty it will advance motherhood, apple pie, animal welfare, the environment, child care, the NSPCC, bishops and the war on dandruff, and ensure the regular return of library books. Enthusiasts for the treaty say that anybody who is against it—as I am—automatically wants the destruction of Europe. I think the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) said that, but it just ain't true. We should not trade caricatures in that way.
	My position is clear. I do not want the treaty because it would advance a European superstate, which I do not like. I want a referendum on the treaty as a matter of principle, because we are being asked to abdicate from the power given to us as MPs by the people—power to take decisions on their behalf. If the people want to do a thing, we take the decision. If we can no longer do so because the power has been transferred to Europe, that is no longer democracy; we are incapable and the institution of Parliament is weakened. That is the reason both for holding a referendum and for opposing the treaty.
	We have run into the nether reaches of the debate, which is when I always speak, so it is good that the Foreign Secretary is still in the Chamber listening to the arguments. The treaty takes us further towards a superstate. The Foreign Secretary told us that the treaty was not a constitution and that the seven years of travail, which I thought were about a constitution, were in fact about institutional reform. I do not believe that. Ninety per cent. of the treaty is the constitution that emerged from the long travails in which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) played such an important part. The treaty has not been changed by the red lines, because they were there before.
	If European leaders such as Angela Merkel and Bertie Ahern tell us that the treaty is the same as the constitution, if Giscard d'Estaing tells us that it is the same as the constitution but cleverly disguised, if it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and reads like a constitution, as far as I am concerned it is a constitution. We do ourselves no good by saying that it is not a constitution but a completely different document—it is not.
	It is said that diplomats are honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. Well, I do not want Foreign Secretaries to be honest men kept at home to tell untruths about the European Union. That is effectively what has been happening. I do not say "lies"; I say "untruths". Perhaps I should call them Euro-truths, because that is about the same level of accuracy.
	I looked pedantically at the "Shorter Oxford English Dictionary". It is a very big volume; I nearly ruptured myself getting it down from the shelves. It says:
	"Constitution...3. a decree, ordinance, law or regulation...6. the mode in which a state is constituted or organised...7. the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed."
	Whether we call it a treaty or a reheated Euro-dog's dinner, the document has all those characteristics. It is therefore effectively a constitution.
	It is no good telling us that black is white. We are already viewed with suspicion by the great mass of this country's electorate, who think that politicians lie, who automatically distrust anything that comes from a Department and disbelieve it, and who tell us that they do not believe a word that we say. So it is no use telling us that black is white, when it manifestly is not. That does not encourage any respect for Europe, for the constitution or for the institutions of Government.
	So let me apply the Paxman test—nothing to do with underpants. To paraphrase the Paxman test—I would apply it to many in the European Union—why is that untruthful person of uncertain parentage telling me what I believe is not true? I can answer that test: Europe is saying that this is not a constitution but a treaty, because in its view, a treaty does not need a referendum. Our Government are telling us that the treaty does not need a referendum, because they know that they would lose. It is as simple as that, and we must be honest about it.
	I found the Liberal Democrat position absolutely extraordinary. The Liberal Democrats want a referendum on something entirely different from the constitution, but that just shows that their love for Europe is greater than their love for democracy. I have always thought that that was their view anyway, so it is no great revelation.

Jo Swinson: rose—

Austin Mitchell: It would be honest to say that we do not want a referendum because we fear that we would lose. We should admit that, because in doing so, we would be saying that the constitution and the advance of European union is a construct of the elite that must be foisted on the people, who cannot be trusted to vote on it, to have a say on it or to give their views on it, and I do not want to have to say that to the people.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Austin Mitchell: I would rather not give way, because I am inevitably grinding slowly to a conclusion.
	It is true that I do not want to build a European superstate. In that superstate, we would be like Mrs. Rochester in "Jane Eyre"—the mad person in the attic—and why would we be in that situation? Because the people do not like it; because the people do not want it; because the people feel that they are not being consulted; and because the people feel that it is being imposed on them. If we pass the treaty without a referendum, we will encourage all those feelings.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) correctly identified one of the issues at the heart of the debate: whether the House is entitled to give away powers irrevocably, when those powers ultimately belong to the people whom we represent.
	The other big problem is that the European Union is in something of a crisis. That was identified seven years ago, when the reform process was launched. Heads of Government, meeting at Laeken in 2001, recognised the very deep public disillusionment with the European Union and did not request but instructed the European Union to become more democratic, simpler and closer to its citizens. But as I know, because I was at the Convention on the Future of Europe, those instructions were ignored. Instead, the process fell victim to the iron determination of the European Union institutions not to give up their powers but to centralise them further at the expense of member states. I witnessed that; I predicted that it would fail, and it did, at the hands of the French and Dutch electorate. But instead of lessons being learned, the crimes were repeated.
	Two reports—one from the European Scrutiny Committee and the other from the Foreign Affairs Committee—describe well how the German presidency was not told to draft a treaty last year; it was actually told to produce a report for further discussion. However, it exceeded those instructions, which were given at the previous European summit, and drew up a draft treaty, the text of which was shown to member states only on 19 June, two days before the start of the European summit that approved the treaty. Since then, no change or amendment of any sort has been possible. We had only that two-day window in which to try to influence the result and measure the text against the instructions, which were to ensure simplicity and democracy.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office—that once-great Department—meekly assented to that compressed timetable, although it was completely unnecessary to do so, as we had a veto over the whole process. The scandal is that simultaneously, there were repeated assurances that the public would be brought alongside, consulted and engaged. The presidency conclusions of last June say:
	"The European Council emphasises the crucial importance of reinforcing communication with the European citizens, providing full and comprehensive information on the European Union and involving them in a permanent dialogue."
	How can we have permanent dialogue with the European Union when it produces a draft treaty only 48 hours before it is agreed? It is a totally two-faced procedure, and it is a scandal that the House and the Government went along with it. Of course, the reason is obvious: the Government never had the slightest intention of consulting the people. That was done in France and Holland, which said no, and the Government are not going to make that mistake.
	This is the last treaty on which any public vote will be possible, because it now becomes self-amending. Never again will it be brought before the intergovernmental conference, and never again will it be put to a referendum. That is why the treaty is incomprehensible. The position is not, "The treaty's complicated, so we can't ask the people"; the treaty is complicated because the European Union knew that it had been relieved of the obligation to simplify it for our voters and our electorate. That is why it resorted to the old process of drawing up legal texts by politicians and lawyers for other politicians and lawyers.
	If one reads the text of the treaty, as I had to, one can see that we are talking about an entirely unreformed European Union. It remains one of the most old-fashioned organisations in the world—centralised, harmonised, and obsessed with standardisation and over-regulation. It is completely out-manoeuvred by the rest of the world. For example, no other group of countries on earth has followed the European Union in becoming a customs union. Instead, they have all gone down the route of free trade agreements, which achieve the same circulation of goods and people, without binding member states to a trade policy about which they can do nothing, and which prevents them from helping the poorest countries on earth through bilateral agreements.
	The EU is entirely an old-fashioned structure, unreformed in every respect. Another example of that is its budgetary policy. The European Union budget is a byword for waste and inefficiency. In the Convention on the Future of Europe, amendments were tabled to try to reform the budget. I tabled some, but I got no help whatever from the Government representative, the then Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who clearly had trouble with money even in those days. Since then, and for the 13th year, the European Union accounts have been rejected by the auditors. Only last week we saw the pitiful spectacle of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury raising our contribution to £5 billion a year, net. We have no idea how that money is spent.
	More policies and powers are being loaded on to the creaking edifice. Criminal justice is just one example, and it goes to the core of what Parliament does in defining penalties and punishments on behalf of the people whom we represent. The treaty marches right into that territory: the red lines that are supposed to protect it are entirely insecure, as is shown by the Select Committee report. The key point is that the treaty is irreversible: if a future Government want to try to retrieve those powers, or if they want a different policy on criminal justice, immigration, asylum and policing, that will be impossible, as we will have exported those powers irreversibly.
	A change of Government will therefore mean nothing. Democracy will die, because people will not vote. Why should they vote at a general election for a party that promises to change our immigration or criminal justice policies, when it is impossible for it to do so? There is only solution—to ask the people. Ultimately, it is not our powers that we are discussing but the powers of the people we represent. We cannot give away those powers without their consent. We promised to consult them in national referendums, and the very least that Parliament can do is keep its promises.

Graham Stringer: The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) defined the debate perfectly, when he said it was about not only whether we support the Lisbon treaty but whether we should have a referendum on that question. Those are the two issues before us, and the referendum is of much more importance than the Lisbon treaty, because more than 600 right hon. and hon. Members stood in the last election on manifestos promising to hold a referendum. I fully recognise that a small number of Members, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have made their views robustly clear to the electorate. I absolve the right hon. and learned Gentleman of any commitment to vote for a referendum, because he was honest with the people who elected him. If we do not hold a referendum, however, there are more than 600 right hon. and hon. Members to whom the same does not apply.
	We must remember that debate on what was then called the constitutional treaty was expunged from the 2005 general election campaign, because every party said that it would hold the debate when there was a referendum. I cannot remember a single major discussion on the television about the subject. That is the most important issue, because it is about honesty and integrity, and about democracy in the House.
	In the time I am allowed, I shall quickly go through the issues. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that this was a change treaty, but he is more or less on his own in saying so. If one met most of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of European states, the people who drafted the constitution, or Select Committee members, one would find that they all said that there was no real difference between the Lisbon treaty and the original proposals in the constitution. I would even ask the Whips, because they tried to persuade me to vote in support of Second Reading on the basis that such a measure appeared in our manifesto. The only treaty in the manifesto was the constitutional treaty, which, wearing another hat, they say has changed. The Government are confused on the issue, as are the Opposition.
	Some of the analogies used to justify the measure are bizarre. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) knows as little about genetics as he does about politics. Just because there is only a 1 per cent. difference between our DNA and that of a chimpanzee or a bonobo does not mean that there is a 3 or 4 per cent. change between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty and thus a difference between the two measures. The difference is that bonobos do not write treaties or compose music. The fact is that what is left in the Lisbon treaty does almost exactly what the original constitutional treaty would have done.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way—unlike the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Does he not accept that as far as there is debate about Europe in our constituencies—in the pubs of Britain—it is much more on the substantive issue of whether we should be in or out of Europe than on the intricacies of the Lisbon treaty?

Graham Stringer: I agree that there is dissatisfaction about Europe, and I agree with the former leader of the hon. Lady's party that some time or other there will have to be a real debate with the public, when such issues are voted on. I would be happy to vote on both the treaty and the in-or-out issue, at any time.
	The second reason given is that the House does not do referendums. That was the position 30 or 40 years ago. I have not added up how many referendums there have been in this country in the past 10 years, but we are well into double figures; they are now a well recognised part of the constitution.
	The third reason given for going along with the treaty is that it does not change very much, and without it the European Union would not work very well, so we need it because it will help make the EU more effective. As a member of the Transport Committee, I have looked seriously at how the EU has bulldozed through the Galileo project. It seems to me that the EU works very effectively at the moment, and that if it is looking for priorities, it should put the common agricultural policy right before dealing with the details of the Lisbon treaty.
	I have listed the arguments that have been put publicly. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is right to say that the private discussions are along these lines: "We can't have a referendum; it would damage the Government, because they, and the Labour party, would lose it." I say to members of my own party who hold that point of view that the electorate might well reject the Lisbon treaty—but if that is true, what are we doing putting it through anyway? It is much more damaging to the integrity of politics if we promise people something at election time and do not carry it through later.
	Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agonise about why turnout is going down at local and general elections. All sorts of gimmicks are considered; they look to electronic voting and changing voting days from Thursday to Sunday, for example. The most important factor, however, is whether when we get elected we carry out the commitments we made when talking to the electorate at election time. The commitment to a referendum was given by more or less all the parties in the House, and the electorate can reasonably expect it to be carried through.
	Another reason given is even more shameful: "People don't care. How many letters have you had on this issue?" I have not had many, but when I talk to people, when they stop me in supermarkets, they show that they do care about the issue. It is not at the front of their minds, as it is of ours, all the time, but they know that a commitment will not be carried through.
	Another reason is whispered in the Tea Room and elsewhere. It is that people do not understand; the issue is too complicated for electors to grasp, and they are not up to it. Apparently, they are up to electing hon. Members, but not to understanding the Lisbon treaty. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members who really believe that to use their communications allowance to write to their electors to tell them that they are not up to understanding the Lisbon treaty. I believe that my electors understand what the treaty is about, and would welcome a vote both on the Lisbon treaty and on whether to stay in or leave the European Union.
	Yet another reason given—sometimes publicly, sometimes privately—is that the real issue is about whether to stay in or out. That has some credence. There is an appetite for debate among the electorate as to whether we should be in or out of the EU; I would want to stay in, as it happens.
	One would not get through a first-year undergraduate course in philosophy by being asked one question and then moving on to a completely different question. We promised people a vote on what was then the constitutional treaty and is now the Lisbon treaty. It is healthy in a democracy for the electorate to be sceptical about their politicians and to question and wonder about what they are doing. When that scepticism turns to cynicism because they no longer believe their politicians, there is a real danger of damage to the democracy that we all support.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I say that as an awful lot of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, and some are clearly going to be disappointed, it would be helpful if Members could try to take a little less than the eight minutes that are allowed.

David Curry: I shall vote for the Bill and the treaty tonight. It is always a difficult matter to find oneself in a very small minority on an issue that engages one's party with a great deal of passion. I suppose that if I look back on what has really animated my political life, it has been the desire to see the United Kingdom engage thoroughly with Europe. It has been a fairly stony path, and I have to say that I see no positive conclusion yet. I shall vote for the treaty very much despite the Government, not because of them—particularly given that, of the two very amusing Front-Bench speeches, at least the one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was intentionally so.
	Too often, the treaty is treated as a religion. The European Union is not a religious issue but a political one. It is not the Book of Revelations, nor is it the Book of Job. Different Members treat it as if it is either a wonderful document with biblical certainty, or nothing but a long chapter of lamentations—but it is neither of those.
	I am not very interested in the extent to which the treaty resembles the old constitution. Of course, countries that voted for the old constitution will think that it is the same thing, while those that were against it have every interest in showing that it is something different. What matters, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, is how bankable the various red line opt-ins and opt-outs are, because what is different, if they hold, is Britain's range of obligations under the treaty. It is the same treaty, in stark terms, but Britain's obligations are not the same as they were under the original constitution.
	We should judge the treaty on the very practical ground of which we have been proud in British politics: does it work? It may not be impeccable, but will it make things better, and does it contain hidden bear traps? The whole argument in this debate has really been about not whether it is intrinsically good or bad but whether there is something hidden in it that will push us inexorably towards a different sort of Europe. Since this is the 400th anniversary of Milton's birth, perhaps I can quote a line from "Paradise Lost"—
	"Present fears
	Are less than horrible imaginings",
	which is probably the motto of the Eurosceptics.
	The treaty flows from enlargement, which was a huge political victory. It is worth remembering that the enlargement of the European Union was the biggest and most dramatic peaceful shift of population and power in Europe since the decline of the western Roman empire 1,600 years ago. The changes give us a better chance of dealing with the new agendas that are pressing upon us, which have constantly been repeated in the debate—climate change, population movement, competitiveness and terrorism. They do not guarantee it—that is a question of political will—but institutionally, they make us better able to respond positively if member states can summon up the will.
	Most aspects are commonsensical. The so-called permanent president of the Council is perfectly sensible; rotation is a pretty daft idea. The foreign policy high representative will certainly improve co-operation. The fact that President Putin has just signed a gas deal with Bulgaria illustrates the extent to which the European Union needs to get its act together faced with the Russian state. As for qualified majority voting, it is worth remembering that it delivered one of the greatest British triumphs in the European Union—the single market. Mrs. Thatcher would never have delivered the single market without qualified majority voting; it was the instrument that delivered that huge British success story. I simply do not believe that some covert agenda will overwhelm either Britain's ability to state her interests or, for that matter, her identity.
	I would probably christen the opt-outs or red lines the "Wellington clauses", because they always remind me of the Duke of Wellington's thin red lines at Torres Vedras during the Peninsula war, where, very conveniently, the enemy was the French—an attitude that has rather endured, I have to say. When the impact of things such as population movement, which flows from climate change, hits the United Kingdom, I wonder whether we will eventually see the case for greater policy co-ordination and integration. The treaty is a pretty modest one. It does not compare with the Single European Act or Maastricht, but the consequences of failure would be huge. We are four years on from the French referendum veto and the Dutch veto. It is a huge matter for the United Kingdom, and huge for Europe.
	I am not persuaded by the case for a referendum. We are rightly concerned with the decline of Parliament and its subservience to the Executive. That is the subject of almost eternal debate. Frankly, I can think of no greater way of accelerating Parliament's decline than to move to voting by plebiscite, for three reasons. First, the liberal and tolerant society in which I believe would be put at risk if we moved to government by plebiscite. Secondly, plebiscite is almost invariably an instrument against change. Thirdly, it is a lethal weapon in the hands of the Executive. As a parliamentarian, I do not believe in any of those three things. There may be once-in-a-lifetime changes—the single currency would be one—that are appropriate matters for a referendum, but not this relatively modest treaty.
	We do need a pretty long respite from institutional change, but equally, there is a huge opportunity for Britain if it can overcome its habitual and, if I may say so, consensual response of baffled equivocation to any initiative that comes from Europe. That is why I said earlier that my political life had been in many ways animated by the desire to see Britain engage with Europe. Political and personal reasons lie behind that concern and preoccupation. I said that I had travelled on fairly stony ground; I hope that I may yet see, once this treaty is out of the way, the United Kingdom deciding that we should actually—in the old-fashioned Yorkshire expression—get stuck in to our relationship with Europe, because there are huge benefits to be gained from a Europe that is in many ways more sympathetic to the UK's world view than it has been for many years.
	I shall vote for this treaty. I shall not, when the opportunity comes, vote for a referendum. It will be with great sadness, because of the position of my party, but with the understanding that tolerance of views that are privately, personally and passionately held has always been understood in this House, and it is in that spirit I shall vote in the way that I feel I must.

Ian Davidson: Obviously, I rise with some disappointment about the fact that my amendment was not put before the House, but it is interesting that that amendment, which had so many people behind it—a rainbow coalition that united a variety of parties and individuals, far more so than the average Italian coalition—represented a widespread current of opinion that should not go unnoticed. Hopefully, that coalition will continue and build.
	There are a number of sensible changes, which I support, in the treaty. I regret in many ways that we have had debates, as we usually do on Europe, that are so polarised between black and white: the question is posed as absolutely for or absolutely against. The Government have deliberately sought to paint so many European debates as being between themselves—moderate, sensible and wanting to get on with business—and those who want to withdraw, who are seen as the equivalent of flat-earthers, some of whom I saw the other day were compared with those who believe in Nazi conspiracy theories. I do not think that that sort of political discussion is sensible or illuminating, and we should not continue with it.

Daniel Kawczynski: The person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is the Minister for Europe, who, in interviews with the media, made rather obscure references to that posing the same danger to us as Nazi Germany, and to letters that he had received. It was scaremongering from the Minister for Europe.

Ian Davidson: Gosh, that is an interesting point, which will now be noted in  Hansard.
	On balance, I find myself against the treaty. One of the most significant speeches, for me, was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). His speech showed why he supported the treaty, but he said that he saw it as a tipping point. To a great extent, I see it as a tipping point, too. I object to the centralisation that it will bring into effect.
	I regret that the Liberals in particular have chosen to hang themselves on the hook of saying, "Here is a question. We want to answer a completely different one." It is noticeable that hardly any of them are in the Chamber at the moment. They seem to take the view that they can simply avoid the question and hope it goes away, and that if they ask other questions, such as, "Are you for or against cracked pavements?", people will overlook the fact that they appear to have no observations on the matter. It is fair to say that only 20 per cent. of Liberals have a clear view on cracked pavements; the others regard the subject as too political and would rather discuss whether buses should run on time. Even on that, as I understand it, the party is split.
	There are questions about whether we should have a referendum that have not been answered. I am not necessarily obsessed by the question of referendums in all circumstances, but we promised to hold one. It was in our manifesto. It is unequivocally clear that we promised a referendum on these questions. The sole reason that we are not having a referendum in Britain is that the European political elite have learned from the lessons of France and Holland. They have learned that if they do not want people to give them the wrong answer, they should not ask them the question. Let us not forget that the Portuguese wanted a referendum, confident that there would be a yes vote. However, they were leaned on by Britain, France and some other European leaders not to have a referendum because it would cause embarrassment to this country in particular and would enhance the pressure for a referendum. For Britain to have pressed another country not to have a referendum because it might be embarrassing somewhat undermines the case that a referendum is not necessary.
	I remember when those in my party had that long conversation with themselves and refused to listen to the public, and when many of those who are now ardent Blairites were ardent Bennites. I disagreed with the same people then as I do now. We had that conversation while ignoring the electorate. We are ignoring the electorate on this matter, to our grave danger. The circumstances are significant.
	Let me return to the Liberals; I always enjoy doing so in these circumstances. Does anybody remember Nick Clegg? He used to be the Liberal spokesman on foreign affairs and moved a motion at the Liberal Democrat party conference in 2005 that said:
	"Any proposals which involve significant change in the relationship between the Union, the member states and its citizens should be approved in Britain through a referendum."
	 [ Interruption. ] Yes, he did say that, and the motion was carried. I sometimes wonder what happened to that Nick Clegg, because he also—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is customary in the House to refer to hon. Gentlemen by their constituencies, not by their names.

Ian Davidson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was not sure whether he was the same person. I should refer to him as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). In an article in  The Guardian, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government being afraid to hold a referendum. He wrote:
	"The real reason, of course, why the government does not want to hold a referendum is the fear that it may lose... It is the same fear that led Peter Hain to camouflage the constitution with comic inaccuracy as nothing more than a 'tidying up exercise'... Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the 'cojones' to carry our argument to the people".
	I understand that "cojones" is Spanish for a rude word. That demonstrates to me that the Liberal Democrats can talk balls in many languages—and, indeed, frequently do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks, but he should remember that there is a difference between accepted parliamentary language and good taste.

Ian Davidson: I will try to pronounce the word adequately next time. I am sure that many of my colleagues do not understand the original Spanish.
	The Government clearly promised a referendum. The second element of our debate is whether the constitution and the treaty are the same. At 11 o'clock this morning, we were issued with the consolidated text of the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. If it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and has the weight of a constitution, it is a constitution. The last line of the document states:
	"Printed on paper containing 75 per cent. recycled content."
	In my view, a greater percentage is recycled. Government efforts to present the treaty as entirely new are akin to fitting a new set of tyres on a car and claiming that it is a new car. We all know that it is the same thing all over again. The public know that, too, and denying it undermines my party and our credibility as elected politicians.
	Although I find a lot to support in the treaty—I am especially happy about multi-speed Europe, asymmetrical progression and so on—I am not convinced that the Government's red lines will hold. The Government must prove that they will hold, because I fear that they will be undermined by an activist European Court of Justice.
	I end with the point that the Government have prayed in aid several organisations, many of which receive money from the European Union, and should declare an interest. Oxfam said to me:
	"Oxfam has no stance on whether or not the EU treaty is adopted or whether or not there should be a referendum—these issues are outside our competence and mandate."

John Redwood: If the motion is passed, it will be a bad day for trust in British politics and for those of us who want self-government and democracy in our country strengthened. Ministers insult the intelligence of not only the British people but Members of Parliament. It is obvious to anyone who reads the document that it is largely the old constitution. It is obvious to anyone outside the House that a Member who was elected in 2005 on a promise to hold a referendum on the proposals should vote tonight to do that.
	I find it heroic to the point of being bizarre that many Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, who were elected in 2005 on small majorities, want to be with the Government in tearing up their promise to the electors to grant them a referendum. It is especially bizarre given that the Conservative party is so much higher in the polls than it was in 2005 and their parties are lower. It is bizarre, given that local content in elections is increasing rather than decreasing. It is odd, given that most Members of Parliament, when interviewed separately, agree with me that they need to do everything possible to build trust and confidence with electors because their party is so unpopular, that many should wish tonight to take action that implies that they intend to snub their electors and make it more likely that the 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 electors whose support they need to retain will go another way in an election.
	Ministers have forgotten, if they ever knew, that only one in five of all voters voted for the Government in 2005. They have forgotten that the Labour party polled even fewer votes in England than the Conservative party did in 2005, a year in which the Conservative party polled very badly. Ministers have forgotten that twice as many people decided not to vote at all in the 2005 general election as voted for the Government, because many of them had no trust in politics already. So how on earth can Ministers argue the indefensible tonight and tell their Back Benchers that it is for the good of their cause that they must snub the electors, tear up their promise and destroy what little trust remains in the Government by saying that there must be no referendum?
	Looking at the situation from a party political point of view, my party welcomes the Government's position, because it makes it more likely that we will win those seats. However, as a democrat and as someone who believes that trust in politics desperately needs to be restored, I am unhappy to see both the Lib Dems and Labour in such a strange mode.
	As someone who believes that we have already lost too many powers to govern ourselves in a democratic way through Parliament and this Chamber, I am worried to see 60 vetoes on major policy areas being tossed away by the draft proposal, and to see Ministers now accepting that foreign policy and criminal justice will become part of the EU proper in a way that, under the European Court of Justice, will gradually reduce and limit powers. I am also worried to see Ministers pretending that they have protected their so-called red lines, when they have retreated at every conceivable turn.
	There was an easy way of preserving our right to self-government in crucial areas such as tax and benefits, foreign affairs and criminal justice, and that was to keep the veto. It did not require great powers of oratory or persuasion, or the building of great coalitions. All that Ministers had to do on our behalf was to veto giving away the veto. It was terribly simple—they had the power, and they willingly and negligently decided to give it away. As a result, if the treaty goes through, our country cannot be sure that we will remain in charge of our own affairs even in those vital areas of foreign policy, criminal justice, and taxation and benefits or that we will be able do what the electorate wish us to do, by keeping our election promises.
	The surrender of those powers will be another way in which trust in our politics will be undermined. Already people do not trust politicians in the House, because in so many cases we are unable to do what we say we will, as European laws and regulations prevent us. That will now happen on a much bigger waterfront if those powers are truly surrendered and the Bill goes through.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Redwood: I will not, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
	I urge the House tonight not to surrender those powers but to strike a blow to restore trust in politics, and to show the public that we are prepared to stand up to an over-mighty Executive, who do damage to us but give in at every conceivable opportunity in Europe. That is what is destroying politics. We need to start restoring trust.

Roger Godsiff: Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I supported the Labour party's 2005 manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the EU constitution. Some 240 clauses of the amended treaty are the same as the ones in the EU constitution. The 10 that are different relate to symbolic elements, as the Danish Prime Minister said.
	I listened to what the Foreign Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman said. I believe that the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man, but there are other honourable men and women who spoke on the issue after the treaty was agreed. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said:
	"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
	Jose Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, said:
	"We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go...It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe."
	Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, said:
	"90 per cent. of it is still there...these changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed in 2004".

John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Godsiff: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but time is pressing.
	Astrid Thors, the Finnish Foreign Minister, said:
	"There is nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
	I have said that I believe the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man. I also believe that the four other people whom I have mentioned are honourable. However, they cannot all be right. If the amending treaty is adopted, there will be a further transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—who is not here at the moment—has made clear. This will add to the half of UK legislation on business, charities and the voluntary sector that already originates in the European Union.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems is that more matters will come under the European Court of Justice? It is an activist Court that is always increasing the federal power, so many more things will be at risk, whatever Ministers might promise.

Roger Godsiff: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good, valid point.
	It has been suggested that, unless we adopt the amending treaty, the EU will be prevented from fighting climate change. However, it already has plenty of powers in areas such as environmental policy. The EU does not need a constitutional treaty to fight climate change. It simply needs to develop policies that work, and to have the political will to pursue them.
	It is easy to label anyone who does not support the amending treaty as anti-European, and to say that referendums are somehow un-British. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has pointed out, however, Labour Governments have quite rightly held referendums in the past, including those on Welsh and Scottish devolution and, back in 1975, we had a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the Common Market. Furthermore, even staunch supporters in the media, such as  The Observer, believe that there is justification for the people of this country giving a vote on this issue. In an editorial on 2 September last year, it said:
	"The treaty is indeed a purely technical document. But it salvages the political heart of the constitution—streamlined voting, a strengthened European presidency and diplomatic service. So the symbols have been dropped, but the political charge continues apace. What legitimacy can it have without a public vote?"
	Some supporters of the amending treaty try to make out that the changes in it are insignificant. On 25 June last year, in his last House of Commons comment on Europe, our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave us one of his great one-line quotes. When referring to bringing together the staff of the Commission and the European Council, he said:
	"Are we to have a referendum on an open-plan office?"—[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 26.]
	That is a great quote, but if all this is about is an open-plan office, one wonders why his friend, Mr. Sarkozy, is promoting our former Prime Minister to be its manager, and why our former Prime Minister is alleged to be seriously considering such a prospect.
	The argument about the future of Europe is not, in my opinion, about whether the United Kingdom stays in or leaves; it is about the sort of European Union we want. Do we want a federation—a united states of Europe? I do not believe that that would be in the long-term interests of the people of this country or of Europe. Or do we want a confederation of independent states working for common objectives?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case. Does he agree that the difference in this debate is not between those who believe in an intergovernmental Europe, as he and I do, and those who believe in sacrificing our freedoms to a European superstate? Rather, the difference is between those who want legitimacy expressed through the will of the people and those who are simply prepared to disregard that and, frankly, to be dishonest about the full ramifications of the treaty.

Roger Godsiff: The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully and I shall make a further comment about that in a few moments.
	What I want to see is a confederation, but I believe that the amending treaty as it stands is a further step towards a federation—a united states of Europe. However, let me make this point clear: if that is what the British people want, so be it. What I believe is very wrong is to deny the British people an opportunity to have their say. They were promised a referendum by all the major political parties at the last election and I regret to say that, without a commitment to that from those on the Front Bench tonight, I will not be able to support the Bill.

Ian Taylor: I have only a few minutes, so I will be brief. As I have never supported the concept of referendums, I am in no confusion about that issue. The matter before us tonight is not really about whether there should be a referendum, but whether the treaty is beneficial to the United Kingdom.
	I was saddened by the Foreign Secretary's opening speech. It is not that he said anything with which I particularly disagreed; what saddened me was the tone he adopted, which echoed the tone of the Government's approach, who have sought to reassure people that somehow this awfully threatening issue can be defended by a series of red lines or other qualifications that the Government have proposed. The public out there are unsurprisingly confused when it comes to understanding why the treaty is a good thing. I shall vote for the treaty tonight, because I believe that it is a good thing, but I hope that the Minister for Europe will explain to others the treaty's benefits to our country and why it will help us to influence what is about to happen in Europe and to meet some of the challenges ahead better than would be the case without it.
	That brings me to the brilliant speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), whose eloquence almost tempted me to agree with him. But then I suddenly thought that a brilliant speech before the House does not enable us as a party to influence the very leaders of other countries whom we will need to have on our side if we want to make the changes we desire to the character of the European Union. That is the fundamental weakness of my own party's position—it wants to be in Europe, but it really does not like it and it tells others that it does not like it. We are then rather surprised that others do not want to do what we want to do in the European Union.
	This treaty provides several key developments. It is a shame that the EU is not more united on foreign policy, so if the treaty persists in allowing that to happen, it is all to the good. Given the problems we face in dealing with Russia at the moment, we need more rather than less unity. It is also important to address energy issues, so if the treaty enables us to do so, that, too, is a good thing. Speaking as a former Minister who did business at several Council meetings, qualified majority voting is, by and large, a good thing because it overcomes the opposition of any one member country.
	Will the Minister for Europe please address some of those advantages so that the British people understand that if one wants to stay in the EU, one must make it work much more effectively? It is of no benefit to the EU that there is a weak Commission, and a weak Commission is likely to persist if, as further enlargement takes place, measures to introduce a leaner version—for example, the treaty would reduce the number of commissioners to 18—are not introduced. It is vital that we have someone in the EU who can represent the decisions that the nation states have made, so it is good to appoint a President for that purpose. It is very important to have greater consistency in foreign policy, particularly in the middle east, so if the EU nations have agreed on a policy, we need someone to represent those nations.
	In my view, the British public have not even begun to understand that this treaty brings benefits to the UK and enables the UK better to express itself. What we must do now is ensure that the leaders of other countries realise that our vision of Europe, as one that is more liberal, more open and more interested in global trade and global environmental questions, is worth taking a lead on. In order to take a lead, however, we must convince those countries that we believe in the institutions created in the European Union. I will support the Government tonight, but I hope that they will subsequently be more enthusiastic about the tasks ahead.

Mark Francois: This has been a lively and at times passionate debate, in which we have had, I think, 22 speeches from both sides of the House, as well as a number of interventions, ranging in style from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) to that of the future bishop of Rhondda, who is unfortunately no longer with us and conducting evening prayers. I am also interested to see that we have just been joined by the Prime Minister's right-hand man, Mr. Ed Cojones, who can pass back to the Prime Minister our disappointment that he is not here to vote on these matters tonight.
	The greatest contrast, however, was between the two opening speeches. Without wishing to be malicious to the Foreign Secretary, anybody watching the debate from outside would most certainly have concluded that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) should be speaking for Britain on the world stage.
	Tonight, the House is being asked to begin the ratification of a treaty that hands over major powers from this place to the European Union, and that is, in effect, the old European constitution under another name. To escape their solemn manifesto commitment of a referendum, the Government must subscribe to the fiction that the two documents are really different, a position described by  The Economist as "a farce".

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Francois: In a moment.
	Just in case any Members of the House have not had the opportunity to read through all 291 pages of the English version of the Lisbon treaty, let me summarise briefly how that has been achieved.
	Article 1 of the Lisbon treaty carries forward large elements of the constitution and inserts them directly into the treaty of Maastricht. Article 2 of the Lisbon treaty does exactly the same for the other remaining key powers in the constitution by inserting them into a renamed treaty of Rome. The format might have been modified, but the substance is almost exactly the same. That is why the Labour-led European Scrutiny Committee, whose Chairman made a powerful contribution this evening, conducted a detailed comparison of the two texts and concluded that they are "substantially equivalent", and that to argue otherwise is "misleading".
	Only this weekend, another Labour-led Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, which also undertook a detailed examination of the foreign policy aspects of the two documents, concluded:
	"There is no material difference between the provisions on foreign policy in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon treaty on which a referendum is being denied."
	I will now give way to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who also promised electors in his constituency a referendum on the constitution.

Mark Hendrick: I promised a referendum on a constitutional treaty, not on an amending treaty. In my contribution, I gave a long list of differences between the two treaties. As for what is substantively the same, if the hon. Gentleman means the replacement in the previous constitution of "ecu" with "euro" and "European Community" with "European Union", what is the big deal?

Mark Francois: I shall come on to demonstrate further that the two treaties are effectively the same. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his stunning input to the debate.
	Despite the two Labour-led Committees—

Mike Gapes: rose—

Mark Francois: I see that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee wants to intervene, but he will have to bear with me for a moment.
	Despite those two Labour-led Committees concluding that the two documents are effectively the same, the Government still plough on regardless, arrogantly denying the people of this country the referendum that they solemnly promised in the first place. I now give way to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman has referred to what he described as the Labour-led Foreign Affairs Committee, and has quoted part of our extensive report published yesterday. May I also refer him to the decisions that were taken in producing that report—one by nine votes to two and the other by eight votes to three—to reject a referendum on the treaty?

Mark Francois: I refer the hon. Gentleman to his own report, which discusses elements of the document and says that one foreign policy aspect
	"is unlikely to be beneficial to the UK's position in the EU."
	It then says
	"We recommend that the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty."
	Those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Gentleman's report.
	The Foreign Secretary has a problem. A whole range of other European Union leaders have an inconvenient tendency to tell their own electorates just how similar the two documents are. Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, said that they were 90 per cent. the same. The Spanish Foreign Minister said that they were 98 per cent. the same. The Spanish Prime Minister literally went one better, and said that they were 99 per cent. the same. Valery Giscard d'Estaing—back in November, before someone whispered in his ear—told the "Today" programme that when the two were compared,
	"it's just another presentation and combination of presentations but the text is word to word the same one."
	Even within the Labour pantheon back home, the cracks are beginning to open wider. Bob Crow— [Laughter.]

Mike Gapes: Bob Crow!

Mark Francois: A trade union leader— [Laughter.] Hang on. A trade union leader, who is not exactly a regular dining companion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), said:
	"The only thing that has changed is removing the word constitution and references to the flag and anthem, which will clearly remain in place anyway. If our new listening Government does not give us a vote, its credibility will be in tatters."
	Lord Jones of Birmingham, in an example of typical plain speaking, revealed the truth when he said simply:
	"This is a con to call this a Treaty. It's not, it's exactly the same, it is a constitution".
	Even the Prime Minister, who seeks to dragoon his Back Benchers through the Lobby tonight in favour of this treaty—although, because it is Lisbon, he of course will not be here—knows full well that this is the constitution by another name. In fact he has referred to it as such on several occasions, even in the company of Bertie Ahern, who is granting the Irish people the say that the people of Britain are being denied.

Daniel Kawczynski: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Francois: Very briefly.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend mentioned Bob Crow. He will be aware that the TUC has passed resolutions in favour of a referendum on this issue. Labour Members are betraying the TUC through their stance tonight.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. I will come to the trade unions in a moment.
	The Government have comprehensively lost the argument that the two documents are different. Hardly anyone in the media and less than 10 per cent. of the public believe them on that point. It is, to coin a phrase, patently obvious that the emperor has no clothes, but still the Government have to maintain this desperate pretence; and, crucially, they are asking every member of the House to suspend all independent judgment and become complicit in the deception tonight.
	Under pressure, the Government fall back upon their supposed red lines—which in any case are almost exactly the same as they were in 2005, when we were promised a referendum. However, the European Scrutiny Committee, in two detailed reports, examined the Government's red lines and found them wanting. The Committee's Labour Chairman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), told the BBC's "Today" programme that they would "leak like a sieve"—and that at the end of an examination that took some two months.
	Not only do the red lines fail to protect our sovereignty; as clause 6 shows, the treaty carries forward from the original constitution the new so-called "simplified revision procedure". That is the "ratchet clause", which means that in future individual vetoes could be surrendered for ever after a brief debate on a simple House of Commons motion. If the Bill is passed tonight, we will table amendments in Committee to strengthen the protection, so that no veto can be given up under the auspices of the Bill itself without primary legislation being required.
	The Government's reaction to all this amounts to crude scare tactics. In the weekend press, the Foreign Secretary described opposition to the treaty as an "extreme position", but the people of France and the Netherlands voted against the constitution in 2005, and no one called them "extreme" as a result. As the polls consistently show that three quarters of the British people want a referendum on this treaty, is the Foreign Secretary calling three quarters of our electorate extreme? If he is, his colleagues in marginal constituencies might not thank him for that judgment.
	The trade unions, which voted overwhelmingly for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty at the TUC conference last autumn, might well not thank him either. Let me read out the words of Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, who proposed the motion. He said:
	"The GMB is not an anti-European union. The GMB is not an anti-Labour union...If there is disenchantment with Europe, blame the lack of political vision of MPs but don't blame the trade unions for reminding politicians of their promises to the British people".
	That motion was carried overwhelmingly.
	Labour's manifesto for the 2005 general election was clear about the constitution. It said:
	"We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote".
	The Prime Minister said just before taking office that he regarded honouring that manifesto as "a matter of trust" with the British people. Given that, how can any Labour MP who votes to give this Bill a Second Reading go back to their electorate—or, indeed, their constituency Labour party—and look people squarely in the eye when they will have betrayed the manifesto on which they were originally elected to this House?
	The Government's wriggling on this issue has been matched only by that of the Liberal Democrats, whose Members are present in force tonight—all three of them. Their 2005 manifesto commitment was equally clear. It stated:
	"We are clear in our support for the EU constitution, which we believe is in Britain's interest—but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people".
	Liberal Democrat support for such a referendum goes back even further than that, however. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks pointed out, when the new leader of the Liberal Democrats—whom I congratulate on his forthcoming promotion to the Privy Council—was still an MEP he wrote an article for  The Guardian in which he argued forcefully for a referendum on the EU constitution. He said—and I hope I get the pronunciation right—that:
	"Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the 'cojones' to carry our argument to the people."
	I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat spokesman this evening was rather confused. At one point, he argued that what we needed was an in-out referendum on Europe, and then, a few minutes later, he said we could not have a referendum on the EU constitution—on the Lisbon treaty—because he claimed that that would represent, effectively, an in-out referendum on Europe. That was the argument he put to the House. I say to him and his colleagues, when the Division bell rings in a few minutes' time, let us see exactly what cojones the Liberal Democrats have and which Lobby they go through.
	That brings me to one further argument against giving the Bill a Second Reading. Leaving aside all the technicalities of the treaty—the ratchet clause, the red lines, the collapse of the third pillar—every Member knows from their postbag that, despite the work we all put in every week, support for politics and politicians is diminishing. Will voting for this Bill improve that situation or make it worse? Will it bolster or weaken our authority as an institution in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical public if we surrender even more of our remaining powers without public consent and on the basis of a con that is plain for all to see? Even if the Government were somehow to force the Bill through the Commons on a three-line Whip, I believe the best they can hope for is a pyrrhic victory. They might regard that as a short-term advance, but it could turn out to be something of a strategic defeat in respect of the long-term attitude of the British people towards the European Union; and because of the way it had been done, it could only serve to undermine the credibility of the House in the eyes of the people who sent us here.
	Every Member is ultimately accountable to their electors for how they cast their vote. We shall ensure that voters in every Labour and Liberal Democrat constituency are made well aware of how their Member votes on this treaty. Members on both sides of the House should consider that the Government have completely failed to convince the media and the British people that this treaty is anything other than the constitution under another name—they have also failed to convince the majority of Labour Back Benchers deep down in their heart of hearts.
	We are the guardians of the people's liberties —[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but we are. The powers vested in this House belong ultimately to the people. In a sense, they are not ours to give away—certainly not without a democratic mandate and definitely not on the basis of a false premise. Let us reject this Bill and defend the interests of the British people, unless and until they are allowed to decide the matter.

Jim Murphy: Today's proceedings have been the start of a long debate. I am looking forward to spending more time with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) than with my wife, although that enthusiasm was dimmed when he quoted Bob Crow at me. The day when this Government take policy advice from Bob Crow is the day when we are unquestionably destined for opposition. The evening when the hon. Gentleman cites Bob Crow as a policy adviser is the evening when he confirms that his party is destined to stay in opposition.
	We have listened to almost two dozen speakers. We heard different views from different sides of the House. We heard contributions from the eminent Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes). Both Chairmen eloquently and in detail explained to the House yet again that both those Committees rejected the proposition that the reform treaty should be put to a referendum of this country—that is clear indeed.
	The analysis underpinning so many of this evening's speeches is that the world is changing, and continues to change, at an incredible pace, and that Europe has changed for ever. Across the world the pace of economic, cultural and political globalisation is unsurpassed in our history. In Europe, we are no longer a front line in the old balance of power politics. We celebrated the collapse of the Berlin wall, whose destruction helped to build a stronger Europe.
	The treaty, which we will discuss for the weeks ahead, reflects the fact that Europe's structures have not kept pace with that global and European transformation. Britain joined a European Community of six members. Europe's rules were subsequently adjusted to take account of a membership of 10, then 12 and then 17 member states, but they are inadequate for a European Union of 27 countries. This treaty makes some sensible improvements.

John Redwood: The one thing that we are told is different about the treaty as opposed to the constitution is that the flag and the anthem have been dropped. Can the Minister promise us that we will no longer see the flag and hear the anthem?

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman had his opportunity earlier this evening, when he forgot to explain to the House that he voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and that he said from those Benches that the Amsterdam treaty would abolish Britain. Britain is still with us. He was wrong then, he is wrong now and he will be wrong again.

Greg Hands: rose—

Jim Murphy: I wish to make a bit of progress. The treaty makes some sensible improvements, such as bringing an end to the diplomatic merry-go-round of the rotating presidency. It is ludicrous that Europe changes its leadership in that way, whereby every 26 weeks a new leadership is appointed. No effective organisation should have such a provision built into its inherent structure. It is certainly no way to organise the largest rules-based market in human history.
	On a practical basis, let us consider two of the big challenges we face internationally. There is the pressing issue of Kosovo in our continent. Since we made our international commitments to Kosovo in 1999 Europe has had no fewer than 16 rotating presidencies and we have seen momentum ebb and flow. The second example relates to the UK's relationship with Russia. One of the complications of the UK's and Europe's relationship with Russia is that every time there is a diplomatic issue and a need for a common European position—a policy celebrated on both sides of the House—Europe has a different presidency. The treaty offers a sensible, moderate improvement in the way that Europe operates its rules.

Greg Hands: May I ask the Minister a question about the charter of fundamental rights? He may recall that Tony Blair, the previous Prime Minister, said that the charter would not apply in the UK at all, thanks to the protocol, yet when the Minister for Europe appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee he told us that the protocol is
	"a statement of how the Charter provisions will apply in the UK".
	Does the charter apply or not?

Jim Murphy: The charter records existing rights; it does not create new rights. It is clear that the UK does not have an opt-out on the charter of fundamental rights, which binds European institutions and is an important, progressive move.

John Baron: During the debate, it was suggested that the treaty contains provisions to allow powers to be repatriated to member states. Can the Minister tell the House which top three powers he would like repatriated to the UK and give us the timetable for achieving that, or is European integration just a one-way process?

Jim Murphy: What is clear is that we have an opportunity this evening to vote for a Bill that gives more powers to this place. In voting for the treaty, we are giving the power to recognise the important rights of national Parliaments across the European Union. Again, that is an important, moderate improvement in the rules of the EU.

John Hayes: rose—

Jim Murphy: I give way for the last time, but then I must make some progress in the eight minutes that are left.

John Hayes: The Minister makes an holistic if unconvincing case for pan-European government. His argument so far could just as easily have been made for a constitution. Why was a referendum right for a constitution in 2005 but wrong now?

Jim Murphy: The treaty is different in legal consequence, legal substance and legal structure. Across Europe, nine countries—nine separate sovereign countries—had committed to a referendum on the old constitution. There are no longer nine, but one; only our good friends in the Republic of Ireland, who are bound by their domestic constitutional arrangements to hold a referendum, currently plan to hold one. Eight separate Governments, in eight separate countries, of different political persuasions, have come to the independent conclusion that the old constitution has been abandoned. There will be no European constitution.

Gisela Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jim Murphy: May I make some progress? There is only a short time available.
	There are a number of sensible and important changes about the extension—[Hon. Members: "Give way."] I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
	Under the treaty, there are improvements and changes in the way we organise qualified majority voting. Again, they are to be welcomed in our national interest. The liberalisation of our energy markets across Europe is an important change and improvement. Millions of UK citizens have their energy supplied by French companies. By opening up the energy market through the introduction of qualified majority voting UK companies will have the opportunity to compete across European markets.
	The treaty improves the position of the United Kingdom in terms of its share of the vote in the Council of Ministers. It streamlines the bureaucracy and reduces the size of the European Commission.

Gisela Stuart: Could it be that the eight countries that promised a referendum on the constitution but will not hold a referendum on the treaty did so not because the document was different but because they were terrified about what happened in France and the Netherlands and did not want to risk the same thing in their country?

Jim Murphy: That is not the case at all. The fact is that the Dutch Council of State, for example—an independent body—very clearly, precisely and legalistically came to that conclusion. In Denmark, an independent, objective opinion was reached on whether there should be a referendum. The fact is that all the countries of the European Union have declared that the constitutional approach has been abandoned.
	The treaty that we are considering through the Bill marks the end of a rather circular debate about European structures. It offers improvements on environmental policy. Treaty article 2 sets out a new objective to tackle climate change that is welcomed by the major climate campaign organisations in the UK. The treaty improves the development situation. A new treaty article and a new commitment to the eradication of poverty in the developing world is again welcomed by campaigning organisations across the UK, including Oxfam. The treaty also recognises children's rights for the first time in a European treaty. Part of the ludicrous nature of European debates in the past has been the recognition of animal rights, but no treaty has ever recognised children's rights. The Bill will also empower Parliament in a much more adventurous and ambitious way, by introducing clauses 5 and 6.
	Debates about Europe's future are too often seen through the prism of Britain's past and the sense that the European Union is in some way a vast conspiracy against the UK. Without Europe, the UK would be poorer, less influential in the world and less safe. It would be poorer, because as a trading nation, we rely on a single market of 480 million citizens, with 3 million jobs in the UK reliant on our relationship with the EU. We would be less influential in the world as a medium-sized country. Of course, with a successful economy and exceptional armed forces, we would still have influence, but we would be throwing away the added clout of the opportunity to speak with one voice across the EU. We would also be less safe. The EU's work in fighting international crime and terrorism makes Britain's citizens safer. Safety standards in our workplaces, on our roads and for imported goods are also important innovations and reforms that strengthen the UK.
	It is also clear that today's Conservative party in most parts is captured by an isolationist tendency. The Conservative view, already expressed by the shadow Foreign Secretary in the past, is that Britain is already a foreign land. Every Government in the EU and every main opposition party in Europe supports the treaty. The shadow Minister for Europe was given the opportunity again this evening to name just one European Government who oppose the treaty in the way that he does vociferously. Again, I give him the opportunity to name one Government, or even just one major Conservative party, who share their obsession about Europe and opposition to the treaty—just one.  [ Interruption. ] There we have the answer: the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is part of a coalition that involves the Dutch Animals party, Sinn Fein of Ireland and a rag-bag of Communist parties from across Europe. Is it not remarkable that the Conservatives cannot find one European Conservative party that supports their policy, when we consider, for example, that Italy has 10 Conservative parties of its own? The truth is that the Conservative party of today is in large part more obsessed and isolated than ever before.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a similar speech to those that he has made for the past two or three decades. His views used to be on the periphery of the Conservative party's European position. Now, he finds himself increasingly in the mainstream—the hon. Gentleman nods about that—with the emergence of an organisation called Better Off Out. An ever-increasing number of Conservative Members are members of Better Off Out.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a member of Better Off Out. Better Off Out is so hard-line and simplistic on Europe that the hon. Member for Stone would not even join the organisation. I endorse the Bill.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 224.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time.
	 Ordered ,
	That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Committee  tomorrow.

DEFENCE

Ordered,
	That Willie Rennie be discharged from the Defence Committee and Richard Younger-Ross be added.  ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Richard Younger-Ross be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Sir Menzies Campbell be added.  ——[Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

European Treaty Referendum

Roger Gale: The petition that I wish to present may interest Labour and Liberal Members with marginal seats. It will not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to learn that it has my fullest possible support.
	The petition of residents of Kent,
	Declares that the proposed draft European Reform Treaty is similar in all but insignificant detail to the withdrawn European Constitution; and notes that this fact has been confirmed in the 35th report of Session 2006-2007 of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee; and notes that the Committee has found that the timetable for the adoption of the Reform Treaty now proposed
	"having regard to the sitting terms of national parliaments could not have been better designed to marginalise their role".
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls upon the Government of the United Kingdom to put the proposals, in coherent form, for consideration by the British electorate in a binding referendum before ratifying any further proposed Reform Treaty or constitution by another name.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000107]

Post Office Closures

Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of petitioners of Huby, Sutton-on-the-Forest and Crayke, and the surrounding villages and their residents, in favour of the continuation of the rural post office network across North Yorkshire. While the post office in Huby is not currently set to close, the petitioners wish to combine the village store with the existing post offices in Huby to secure a vibrant future to serve the village, and those of Sutton-on-the-Forest, Crayke and the surrounding area. Some 350 signatures have been acquired from those two or three villages.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of Joan Holder, Huby Post Office, York and others of like disposition,
	Sheweth
	That they fear the proposed Post Office Network review will result in unacceptable numbers of Post Office closures. They wish to see their access to Post Offices across North Yorkshire remain as wide as is currently the case and that there be no further cuts in postal services. They recognise that their Post Offices provide a vital service in a rural community to the most vulnerable, the elderly, the less mobile and those with young families.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to reverse the Post Office's proposed Network Change Programme.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000109]

Post Office Closures (Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to present a petition organised by Great Doddington parish council, with more than 600 names.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of Great Doddington and surrounding areas,
	Sheweth
	That we oppose the closure of our Post Office in Great Doddington. Such a closure would cause an immense amount of hardship, especially for elderly, disabled and other vulnerable groups. It would require the numerous customers of Great Doddington Post Office to travel more than two miles along a major and busy road to the nearest Post Office
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to halt the closure of Great Doddington Post Office.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000111]

0844 TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Steve McCabe.]

Graham Stuart: I am sure that it is on behalf of the whole House that I say that we send out our sympathy to families suffering from flooding during the past few days. I know that my constituents in Burstwick and the surrounding area are concerned tonight that the Burstwick drain may overflow and cause flooding there.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about an issue of great importance to my constituents and an increasing number of people throughout the country: the use of 0844 telephone numbers in GP surgeries. This matter first came to my attention last year when I was contacted by several constituents. They were upset and angry that almost a dozen GP surgeries in the East Riding of Yorkshire had switched to automated phone systems using 0844 numbers, which are significantly more expensive to use than local calls. After looking into the issue in closer detail, it quickly became obvious that this was causing alarm in other parts of the country too.
	According to the service provider Network Europe Group, more than 1,200 GP surgeries—about a fifth of the total number of practices in England—are now using these numbers, and it is believed that more than 300 others have had 0844 or 0845 numbers installed by other companies. In November, I tabled a motion in the House calling for an end to this use of 0844 numbers. Almost 60 MPs, from all over the House, have signed it. The Department of Health has also admitted that it has received more than 100 letters of complaint on the subject since January 2007. This issue has united politicians, residents and patients groups alike—people who can spot an unfair practice when they see one, and who do not like it when the chronically ill, the old, the disabled and those on low incomes are taken advantage of. That is what I believe is currently happening, under the present system, under the present Government.
	I would like to talk a little about these numbers in more detail, and then discuss how they came into existence in the first place, before giving my reasons why they should cease to be used in this way. Such numbers are part of a revenue-sharing telephone system. I have corresponded on this subject with various people, including the British Medical Association, which suggests that no one has benefited from it. However, in case anyone is any doubt, I looked on the internet this evening, and I can tell the House that Call Sure business telephone numbers will provide basic 0844 special rate G6 telephone numbers and that they have
	"Other revenue generating opportunities available".
	If someone installs an 0844 number, the company will ensure that the business concerned earns up to 1.45p per minute. I believe that on the scale that GPs operate, that could be up to 2p per minute—albeit that, I am sure, the money is recycled for the benefit of patients.
	The money generated from each individual call is shared between the phone operator and the GP practice in question. Although they are not officially classed as premium-rate numbers, the new numbers are up to 4p per minute more expensive to call from a standard BT line and can cost up to 40p a minute from a mobile phone. As I said, 2p of that can be contributed to the GP's practice.

Adam Holloway: Is my hon. Friend saying that in the NHS, which was set up to be free at the point of delivery, people are now having to pay—on top of the basic cost of their call—to get through to their GP? If so, I find that quite extraordinary. I did not know that before I came to the Chamber just now.

Graham Stuart: It is a shocking fact that after 10 years of this Labour Government—the principle behind the NHS being that it should be free at the point of delivery—my constituents, as they travel to shift work in Hull from rural Holderness, can find themselves, as they drive along, unsure about whether they will secure an appointment that day, whether they will be at work or whether they will have to ask their boss to allow them to go back and see the doctor, and when the systems open at 8 o'clock, they are on their mobile phones—

Rob Marris: Hands-free.

Graham Stuart: Yes, using a hands-free kit. They may be being driven by a colleague, in a car-share—I am sure that the green inhabitants of my constituency would be doing that. They call up, and when they are put in a queue, it can cost 40p a minute. Whom will it affect most? The chronically ill. Among the chronically ill, on whom will it impact hardest? Those with the lowest incomes. I cannot believe or accept that the Government and the Minister—who I know is a hard-working campaigner for all the people in our system, and takes a great interest in social care and other matters—are comfortable with that ongoing scandal.

Rob Marris: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that things are worse than that? If his constituents decide to phone NHS Direct, they use an 0845 number. If they lose their jobs, they might be faced with an 0845 number when claiming jobseeker's allowance through the Department for Work and Pensions. If they get tax credits, they might have to call an 0845 number. Even worse, if they are fed up with all that and complain to the parliamentary ombudsman, they still have to call an 0845 number.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I am sure that the House welcomes his intervention.
	The system directs patients to services and clinics at their local practice. Network Europe Group claims that it benefits patients because it allows them to be placed in a queue, rather than having to put up with a constant engaged tone. Previously, it says, 92 out of every 100 people who called their local GP surgery were greeted with an engaged tone. Patients groups, and many of my constituents, however, have complained that people are queuing for much longer under the new system, and consequently being left out of pocket. Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said:
	"It's a scandal and it's blighting the vulnerable and the elderly. You ring up and you're confronted with a long menu of options. And all the time it's costing, costing, costing an absolute fortune."
	This is not the first time that the issue of high call charges to GP practices has been brought to the attention of the wider public. In April 2005, the Department of Health issued guidance over complaints that GPs were using premium-rate 0870 numbers, which are even more expensive than 0844 numbers. A memo sent to all primary care trust chief executives on 11 April of that year advised that the Department was
	"stopping GP Practices adopting high cost telephone numbers. A ban on...0870, 0871 and 09 numbers comes into force on 14th April."
	It went on to say:
	"Ofcom recently consulted on proposals to change the regulatory regime that supports Number Translation Services (including the 0870, 0844, 0845 and 09 number ranges)...This could mean that revenue sharing on 0844 numbers is not possible."
	The memo warned GPs that they should
	"bear this in mind if they are considering a move to non-geographical numbers, such as 0844, particularly until Ofcom have published the outcome of the review and the implications are understood."
	The thinking was that Ofcom would come to the rescue and rule out that practice. It tells us that, in addition to the abolition of 0870 numbers, which then cost around 10p per minute from a landline, the Department had recognised that the use of 0844 numbers within the public sector was unacceptable. That was reinforced in 2006, when Ofcom, as a result of the consultation, decided to create a new countrywide number range, "03", which would be charged to the consumer at the same rate as calling a geographical number and could be included in any inclusive or low-cost call packages offered by landline or mobile phone companies.
	In my area, Kingston Communications provides most of the telephone supply, and my constituents could call 03 numbers free of charge within that package. However, the 0844 system means that they are charged a premium rate. The 03 number was to be an attractive alternative for GP surgeries and other public sector bodies. Unfortunately, however, its take-up was not made mandatory. A Department of Health memo, sent to all PCT chief executives in December 2006, stated:
	"The '03' number range is due to be introduced in early 2007. There has been no explicit requirement made by Ofcom for practices to adopt a '03' telephone number but this clearly had its attractions."
	What has happened since is entirely predictable. Once the 0870 numbers were abolished, GP surgeries moved quickly to install the 0844 numbers. That practice has continued unabated. As I said, 1,200 practices across the country are now using the new system, and the Network Europe Group are thought to be installing the lines in up to 40 surgeries every month, while the Under-Secretary simply sits on the Bench.
	The Department of Health has failed to take responsibility for the problem. Its December 2006 memo stated that it is for
	"individual practices to decide what is in their customers' best interests, taking account of the COI guidance on Cost to the Citizen. Normally this will mean the lowest cost per call to the patient (local geographic number or adopting a '03' number)."
	It went on to say that individual PCTs should ensure that
	"patients telephoning practices do not pay more than they would if they called a local geographic number."
	That aspiration, which the Government stated, has not been realised. We are here tonight in the hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the Government have recognised where they have gone wrong, and will take steps to remedy the problem.
	The message was reinforced in October 2007 when the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), stated in a letter to the chair of the East Riding of Yorkshire patient and public involvement forum:
	"we do not want to see people charged excessively for contacting their GP...We believe that NHS organisations, as providers of public services, have a duty to ensure that they provide the best service possible for those whom they serve."
	The Government have subsequently said that although they do not expect GPs to break existing contracts with suppliers, they should not enter into new ones that would mean patients being charged more than for a local call. Clearly, with up to 40 surgeries a month choosing to install the new system, that guidance is not being followed.
	While the Department has continued to shirk responsibility for the situation, patients have been suffering. One constituent wrote to me, saying:
	"I am a district nurse in Hull and one of my GP surgeries has installed this type of phone system! The patients are commenting frequently about the cost and length of time that the surgery takes to answer. I have one patient who says he was on hold for 45 minutes. There are many who initially complained when the system was installed but the system remains. I regularly have to phone them using the community trust mobile which no doubt costs a fortune, however I find it quicker to leave the office and drive to the surgery."
	Another constituent wrote:
	"I pay £5 per month and all 01 calls are free, any time, any day, anywhere but I have to pay for 0844, 0845 numbers and mobiles. I have to see the doctor four times a year for check-ups, but I don't phone in for opps any more—I have to go to the surgery. I'm 84 years old and don't see why I should have to do this."
	For many people, calling their local GP surgery can be stressful and worrying. That is especially true for the poor, the elderly and the disabled. They should not have to put up with high call charges, too. The Department agrees with that assessment. It has said that patients should not pay more than they normally would for a geographical number. Ofcom also agrees. In a written memo sent to me last week, it stated:
	"Ofcom does understand the particular concerns about public sector use of 084 and 087 numbers and has sought to raise awareness of this issue in the public sector. Ofcom has also made clear its view that it is inappropriate for public bodies to use chargeable 08 numbers (without also publishing a geographic number) when dealing with those of limited means and other vulnerable groups."
	Most of us would agree that there are few more vulnerable groups than the sick and the elderly, yet those phone charges disproportionately affect those two groups of people.
	Ofcom has made great progress, in issuing more than 13 million 03 numbers, including to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. However, the problem will be resolved only when the usage of 0844 numbers in GP surgeries is outlawed.

Grant Shapps: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the difficulties with the current system is that it is so unclear about what charges are made for which numbers? How much it will cost a patient to call his or her surgery is often a mystery, because it is not clearly advertised on the link to the phone number for that surgery.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right: the costs are not transparent. Some of the 0845 numbers have a different tariff from the 0844 numbers, but what they have in common is that they are typically not included in the standard call charges covered by a telephone package.
	As I was saying, the problem will be resolved only when the use of 0844 numbers in GP surgeries is outlawed. Neither Ofcom nor the local PCTs have the power to dictate which telephone lines are used by GPs. That can be a matter for only one person—the Secretary of State. I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and put an end to this rip-off practice, which is hurting the poor and the vulnerable, and causing a great deal of distress to thousands of people throughout the country.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important subject. He has raised the issue in a number of ways over a period of time. He is right to maintain the focus and the pressure on an issue that should concern all hon. Members and that does concern many patients and families in different communities up and down the country.
	May I also associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about people facing concerns connected with flooding? I would say to him that, as in the past, this Government—a Government of a state that is on people's side when they have difficulties—will intervene to support those communities that are most affected by flooding.
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman sought to make a major part of his contribution a party political speech, but I should also tell him, very gently, that people in this country were not that long ago not simply waiting for a few minutes in a queue to have their calls answered, but waiting years to have major operations for serious, life-threatening conditions. Let me say one more gentle thing to the hon. Gentleman—

Graham Stuart: This is not gentle!

Ivan Lewis: I will be even more gentle. One of the inconsistencies that presents itself in the Chamber, day in and day out, is when Opposition parties demand a command-and-control approach to public service intervention, but when in their manifestos and public pronouncements about everything that is wrong with public services they say that they would trust the people and devolve power into the hands of front-line professionals and, on occasions, managers. That is one of the great tensions—when Opposition Members, on populist issues or an issue of direct concern to their constituents, demand ministerial intervention at every opportunity. I would therefore say to the hon. Gentleman—again, very gently—that there must be some consistency and integrity in the arguments that hon. Members use about the appropriate responsibilities and accountabilities in our public services.

Graham Stuart: The Minister is absolutely right: consistency is an important quality. However, after the then Secretary of State for Health said in 2005 that
	"Sick people and their families should not be asked to pay over the odds to contact local NHS services",
	changes were made to deal with 0870 numbers. There is already a system established. From 1 April 2005, NHS organisations providing local services could not adopt those numbers. The measures, the techniques and the interventions are established. There is a contract—the money is voted for by the House—and it is entirely appropriate in this case that guidelines should be laid down by Ministers. We have existing guidelines to do that, so the Minister just needs to stop making party political points and agree that something should be done.

Ivan Lewis: May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that of course the Government believe that, on occasion, it is appropriate for Ministers to intervene to make clear what is acceptable in regard to the decisions made about our public services? That has been the hallmark of this Government over the past 10 years. The difficulty we have is that the Opposition parties constantly question that way of governance and decision making in public services.
	I want to address this point seriously and to comment on the substantive contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made. It is entirely unacceptable for any professional working under the banner of the national health service to rip patients off by charging them more than the standard local call rate for contacting their surgeries. That is the Government's position. Difficulties arise, however, when individuals are tied into existing contracts. That involves a commercial arrangement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that GPs are self-employed; they are not employees of the state. I am not sure whether he is proposing to change that arrangement.
	We need to consider the best way to achieve our common goal of preventing the exploitation of patients and stopping this practice being regarded as acceptable. It is regrettable, and almost disappointing, that politicians have to make this point to the national health service.

Grant Shapps: Does the Minister think that the problems that people have getting through to their GPs' surgeries are a significant contributory factor, particularly in regard to the premium rate numbers that charge more than the local call rate, when people sometimes have to wait upwards of 20 minutes to get through? Does he think that that contributes still further to the problems relating to charging?

Ivan Lewis: I am now being asked to get even further into micro-management by analysing the demand on a telephone system and the reason why people might have to wait for a specific period of time. Hon. Members will be familiar, from their own household experiences of trying to contact utility companies, with the often inordinate length of time that they have to wait before their call is taken. It is impossible for me to make a sweeping, generalised statement about whether people are having to wait an unduly long time because GPs and other professionals are choosing inappropriate telephone systems with inappropriate cost levels, or whether they have to wait a significant length of time because of the demand and pressures that any phone system would experience.
	Surely the question here is one of transparency, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said. The charging implications should be absolutely clear to patients and, indeed, to other professionals telephoning GP practices in these circumstances. Transparency is incredibly important, as is fairness. The hon. Gentleman was also right to talk about people on low incomes, isolated older people and people with chronic conditions. We do not want to see such people being ripped off or exploited in any way.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Rob Marris: rose—

Ivan Lewis: I will give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), and then to my hon. Friend.

Angus MacNeil: If calls are being charged for in this way, there must surely be an incentive for those who err on the side of the unscrupulous to keep their patients waiting even longer, so that they can get even more money. On the Minister's point about transparency, perhaps the last thing people who are in ill health need to know is that it is going to cost them 50p a minute to be kept waiting for 10 minutes. That might put them off waiting, and the GP practice would have spoiled the ship for a hap'orth of tar.

Ivan Lewis: There may be one or two candidates in the Chamber for interpreters of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but he makes a valid point. There are incentives within GP contracts—response times, including telephone response times, for example—and they are usually measured through patient satisfaction surveys. The system of contractual relationships with GPs thus provides some incentive for them to respond as quickly as possible.
	I would also say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness that it is important to be measured. The vast majority of GPs would not dream of deliberately seeking to exploit patients by keeping them hanging on the end of a telephone simply to generate income. It would be extremely unfair and unfortunate if any Member were to give the impression that significant numbers of GPs would engage in such practices. I do not believe that they would.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend has characterised these numbers as unfair, particularly for the sick and the elderly, and I quite agree with him. He also made a valid point about how much command and control can be exercised from Whitehall, and he referred to GPs who already have contracts in place. Will he assure the Chamber that when the contract next comes up for NHS Direct, which is under the control of Whitehall, it will not be renewed at an 0845/46/47 or similar higher-rate telephone charge?

Ivan Lewis: I can give my hon. Friend a cast-iron guarantee that that will not be allowed to continue when the NHS Direct contract comes to an end. That provides a very important example of the Government leading by example in this area.
	The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and I have a shared objective and belief in transparency and fairness. The question is how we achieve our objective. I think that, as a precursor to further guidance or diktat from Westminster or Whitehall, we need to gather some hard evidence in the period ahead, so that we can be absolutely clear about the nature and extent of this problem and the range of potential solutions. For example, it is important to establish what proportion of GP practices—and it applies to other professionals in similar circumstances—are tied into long-term contracts on this basis, which would render hollow any Government promises issued from the Dispatch Box about patient experiences.
	What I will commit to tonight is ensuring that the Department begins a serious and substantive gathering of evidence. I invite hon. Members to submit their evidence to that process so that, having established the facts, we can look into the case either for guidance or for going beyond it. I believe that it is an all-party view that no patient or user of the national health service in this country should be ripped off or exploited in this context.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said and I believe anyone listening to the debate will also be grateful. I put it to him that in addition to having extensive and proper research into the issues, he should look further into dealing with the surgeries that have not yet signed a contract. If the Minister could try to influence the Government as soon after tonight as possible so that guidance could be issued to stop any more practices signing contracts that will doubtless have to be honoured in some way, that would represent at least some steps forward. We could then see the way forward to the future.

Ivan Lewis: I am happy to send a strong signal to any practices currently contemplating decisions on the issue. I urge them to reflect on the fact that many of their patients will be on low incomes and particularly vulnerable. In those circumstances, they should consider whether it is consistent with best professional practice to go down the road of charging patients above the local rate. I am happy to make that clear from this Dispatch Box.
	I also caution such practices that as the Government are consistently focusing on the issue and will begin a serious evidence-gathering process, that might lead in the not-too-distant future to even stronger guidance on what will be expected of GPs and associated professionals. GP and primary care practices were cited in the debate, but it is unclear, and we must establish, whether other organisations—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) referred to a range of public services in which this is an issue—such as NHS provider organisations, are engaged in the activity.
	The issue is an important one, and the Government are determined to get to grips with it. Our common duty is to ensure that patients are not exploited and not ripped off, and that we create a system that is both fair and transparent.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.